Surface Roughness of Glass Ionomer Cements Indicated for Uncooperative Patients According to Surface Protection Treatment

Overview

Journal Ann Stomatol (Roma)

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2014 Mar 11

PMID 24611090

Citations 8

Authors

Edoardo Pacifici

Maurizio Bossu

Agostino Giovannetti

Giuseppe La Torre

Fabrizio Guerra

Antonella Polimeni

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Even today, use of Glass Ionomer Cements (GIC) as restorative material is indicated for uncooperative patients.

Aim: The study aimed at estimating the surface roughness of different GICs using or not their proprietary surface coatings and at observing the interfaces between cement and coating through SEM.

Materials And Methods: Forty specimens have been obtained and divided into 4 groups: Fuji IX (IX), Fuji IX/G-Coat Plus (IXC), Vitremer (V), Vitremer/Finishing Gloss (VFG). Samples were obtained using silicone moulds to simulate class I restorations. All specimens were processed for profilometric evaluation. The statistical differences of surface roughness between groups were assessed using One-Way Analysis of Variance (One-Way ANOVA) (p<0.05). The Two-Way Analysis of Variance (Two-Way ANOVA) was used to evaluate the influence of two factors: restoration material and presence of coating. Coated restoration specimens (IXC and VFG) were sectioned perpendicular to the restoration surface and processed for SEM evaluation.

Results: No statistical differences in roughness could be noticed between groups or factors. Following microscopic observation, interfaces between restoration material and coating were better for group IXC than for group VFG.

Conclusions: When specimens are obtained simulating normal clinical procedures, the presence of surface protection does not significantly improve the surface roughness of GICs.

Citing Articles

Effects of Finishing on Surface Roughness of Four Different Glass-Ionomer Cements and One Alkasite: In Vitro Investigation over Time Using Aging Simulation.

Behlau A, Behlau I, Payer M, Leitinger G, Hanscho K, Kqiku L J Funct Biomater. 2024; 15(11).

PMID: 39590529 PMC: 11595664. DOI: 10.3390/jfb15110325.

In vivo study of the behavior of glass ionomer restorations in patients with special needs.

Grau-Benitez M, Silvestre F, Pascual A, Albero A, Silvestre-Rangil J Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2024; 29(4):e559-e567.

PMID: 38907639 PMC: 11249381. DOI: 10.4317/medoral.26537.

Adhesion and Surface Roughness of Apatite-Containing Carbomer and Improved Ionically Bioactive Resin Compared to Glass Ionomers.

Isik H, Cilingir A J Funct Biomater. 2023; 14(7).

PMID: 37504862 PMC: 10381571. DOI: 10.3390/jfb14070367.

The influence of hydrothermal fatigue on the clinically relevant functional properties of conventional glass-ionomer cements.

Lepicka M, Niewczas A, Rodziewicz M, Pikula K, Kordos P, Gredes T Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):8738.

PMID: 37253971 PMC: 10229661. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-35880-4.

Effects of Protective Surface Coating on Fluoride Release and Recharge of Recent Uncoated High-Viscosity Glass Ionomer Cement.

Krajangta N, Dulsamphan C, Chotitanmapong T Dent J (Basel). 2022; 10(12).

PMID: 36547049 PMC: 9777000. DOI: 10.3390/dj10120233.

References

Wilson A, Kent B . A new translucent cement for dentistry. The glass ionomer cement. Br Dent J. 1972; 132(4):133-5. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4802810. View

Gladys S, Van Meerbeek B, Braem M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G . Comparative physico-mechanical characterization of new hybrid restorative materials with conventional glass-ionomer and resin composite restorative materials. J Dent Res. 1997; 76(4):883-94. DOI: 10.1177/00220345970760041001. View

da Silva R, Zuanon A . Surface roughness of glass ionomer cements indicated for atraumatic restorative treatment (ART). Braz Dent J. 2006; 17(2):106-9. DOI: 10.1590/s0103-64402006000200004. View

Lim C, Neo J, Yap A . The influence of finishing time on the marginal seal of a resin-modified glass-ionomer and polyacid-modified resin composite. J Oral Rehabil. 1999; 26(1):48-52. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.1999.00323.x. View

Yap A, Ng J, Yap S, Teo C . Surface finish of resin-modified and highly viscous glass ionomer cements produced by new one-step systems. Oper Dent. 2004; 29(1):87-91. View

Yli-Urpo H, Lassila L, Narhi T, Vallittu P . Compressive strength and surface characterization of glass ionomer cements modified by particles of bioactive glass. Dent Mater. 2005; 21(3):201-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2004.03.006. View

Bollen C, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M . Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater. 1997; 13(4):258-69. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(97)80038-3. View

Bagheri R, Burrow M, Tyas M . Surface characteristics of aesthetic restorative materials - an SEM study. J Oral Rehabil. 2007; 34(1):68-76. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01608.x. View

Brito C, Velasco L, Bonini G, Imparato J, Raggio D . Glass ionomer cement hardness after different materials for surface protection. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2009; 93(1):243-6. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.32524. View

10.

Dupuis V, Payan J, Moya F, Meyer J . Effect of water on the physical properties of resin-modified glass ionomer cements. Dent Mater. 1999; 15(1):71-8. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(99)00016-0. View

11.

Forss H, Jokinen J, Seppa L, LUOMA H . Fluoride and mutans streptococci in plaque grown on glass ionomer and composite. Caries Res. 1991; 25(6):454-8. DOI: 10.1159/000261410. View

12.

Mount G, Makinson O . Glass-ionomer restorative cements: clinical implications of the setting reaction. Oper Dent. 1982; 7(4):134-41. View

13.

Sidhu S, Sherriff M, Watson T . In vivo changes in roughness of resin-modified glass ionomer materials. Dent Mater. 1997; 13(3):208-13. DOI: 10.1016/S0109-5641(97)80028-0. View

14.

Jones C, Billington R, Pearson G . The in vivo perception of roughness of restorations. Br Dent J. 2004; 196(1):42-5. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4810881. View

15.

Quirynen M, Bollen C . The influence of surface roughness and surface-free energy on supra- and subgingival plaque formation in man. A review of the literature. J Clin Periodontol. 1995; 22(1):1-14. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1995.tb01765.x. View

16.

Aguilar-Mendoza J, Rosales-Leal J, Rodriguez-Valverde M, Gonzalez-Lopez S, Cabrerizo-Vilchez M . Wettability and bonding of self-etching dental adhesives. Influence of the smear layer. Dent Mater. 2008; 24(7):994-1000. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2007.11.013. View

17.

Kotsanos N, Dionysopoulos P . Lack of effect of fluoride releasing resin modified glass ionomer restorations on the contacting surface of adjacent primary molars. a clinical prospective study. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2004; 5(3):136-42. View

18.

Karaoglanoglu S, Akgul N, Ozdabak H, Akgul H . Effectiveness of surface protection for glass-ionomer, resin-modified glass-ionomer and polyacid-modified composite resins. Dent Mater J. 2009; 28(1):96-101. View

19.

Wang X, Yap A, Ngo H . Effect of early water exposure on the strength of glass ionomer restoratives. Oper Dent. 2006; 31(5):584-9. DOI: 10.2341/05-106. View

20.

Mount G . Clinical placement of modern glass-ionomer cements. Quintessence Int. 1993; 24(2):99-107. View