Assessment of Occlusal Load Strength of Glass Ionomer Cement and Composite in Class V Cavities: An In-Vitro Study

Overview

Journal Cureus

Specialty Biomedical Engineering

Date 2023 Dec 29

PMID 38156123

Authors

Rakshitha V S

Lakshmi Prabha J

Delphine Priscilla Antony S

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Glass ionomer cement (GIC) is widely used in dentistry due to its chemical adhesion to dental tissues, biocompatibility, and anti-cariogenic potential but they have relatively weak mechanical properties. Resin composites have been widely regarded as the first choice for direct restorations but their polymerization shrinkage has remained a major problem. It has the potential to cause tooth debonding. The composite interface leads to postoperative sensitivity, secondary caries, enamel cracks, and microleakage. A restorative material's capacity to withstand occlusal stresses and support the remaining tooth structure depends on this property. Although class V restorations are predominantly done with GIC, this study was done to compare the strength of composite with the same. The GIC restore glass which is commonly used was tested against restofill composite. The main objective of conducting the study was to compare the compressive strength of the composite vs GIC in cervical cavities. So the aim of the study is to assess the occlusal load strength of GIC and composite in class V cavities using the universal testing machine.

Materials And Methods: This study was employed as an in vitro study involving 20 natural central incisor teeth without any carious lesions. Class V cavity preparation was done and the selected teeth were divided into two groups of ten each. The cavities were filled with D Tech Restore GIC and composite restorations (restofill), respectively, polished, and then subjected to testing. An eccentric load was applied to the tooth structure using an Instron (Instron E3000 Electropuls, Instron, Norwood, United States) - Universal testing machine with a cross-head speed of 1mm per minute, and the stresses were further analyzed in the presence of an occlusal loading test using a stainless steel jig of 1mm diameter which led to the sectioning of the tooth buccolingually under the applied load.

Results: An independent t-test was used to assess the results, and it was concluded that the results were statistically significant (p<0.05) at p=0.034.

Conclusion: Conclusively, the results suggested that the occlusal load strength of the composite is greater when compared to GIC.

Citing Articles

Fabrication and characterization of reinforced glass ionomer cement by zinc oxide and hydroxyapatite nanoparticles.

Azimi R, Shahgholi M, Khandan A Heliyon. 2024; 10(20):e39063.

PMID: 39640694 PMC: 11620148. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e39063.

References

GEYER G, Helms J . Ionomer-based bone substitute in otologic surgery. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 1993; 250(5):253-6. DOI: 10.1007/BF00186221. View

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

Mondelli J, Steagall L, Ishikiriama A, de Lima Navarro M, Soares F . Fracture strength of human teeth with cavity preparations. J Prosthet Dent. 1980; 43(4):419-22. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(80)90213-9. View

Dang N, Meshram G, Mittal R . Effects of designs of Class 2 preparations on resistance of teeth to fracture. Indian J Dent Res. 1997; 8(3):90-4. View

Bezerra I, Brito A, de Sousa S, Santiago B, Cavalcanti Y, Almeida L . Glass ionomer cements compared with composite resin in restoration of noncarious cervical lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Heliyon. 2020; 6(5):e03969. PMC: 7243139. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03969. View

Heyder M, Sigusch B, Hoder-Przyrembel C, Schuetze J, Kranz S, Reise M . Clinical effects of laser-based cavity preparation on class V resin-composite fillings. PLoS One. 2022; 17(6):e0270312. PMC: 9223344. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270312. View

Khoroushi M, Mousavinasab S, Keshani F, Hashemi S . Effect of resin-modified glass ionomer containing bioactive glass on the flexural strength and morphology of demineralized dentin. Oper Dent. 2012; 38(2):E1-10. DOI: 10.2341/11-325-L. View

Zidan O, Gomez-Marin O, Tsuchiya T . A comparative study of the effects of dentinal bonding agents and application techniques on marginal gaps in Class V cavities. J Dent Res. 1987; 66(3):716-21. DOI: 10.1177/00220345870660030201. View

Larson T, Douglas W, Geistfeld R . Effect of prepared cavities on the strength of teeth. Oper Dent. 1981; 6(1):2-5. View

10.

Sidhu S, Watson T . Resin-modified glass ionomer materials. A status report for the American Journal of Dentistry. Am J Dent. 1995; 8(1):59-67. View

11.

Lucas M, Arita K, Nishino M . Toughness, bonding and fluoride-release properties of hydroxyapatite-added glass ionomer cement. Biomaterials. 2003; 24(21):3787-94. DOI: 10.1016/s0142-9612(03)00260-6. View

12.

Gonzalez-Lopez S, Vilchez Diaz M, de Haro-Gasquet F, Ceballos L, De Haro-Munoz C . Cuspal flexure of teeth with composite restorations subjected to occlusal loading. J Adhes Dent. 2007; 9(1):11-5. View

13.

Kent B, Lewis B, Wilson A . The properties of a glass ionomer cement. Br Dent J. 1973; 135(7):322-6. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4803083. View

14.

Smith D . Composition and characteristics of glass ionomer cements. J Am Dent Assoc. 1990; 120(1):20-2. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1990.0002. View

15.

Moshaverinia A, Ansari S, Moshaverinia M, Roohpour N, Darr J, Rehman I . Effects of incorporation of hydroxyapatite and fluoroapatite nanobioceramics into conventional glass ionomer cements (GIC). Acta Biomater. 2007; 4(2):432-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2007.07.011. View

16.

Joynt R, Wieczkowski Jr G, Klockowski R, Davis E . Effects of composite restorations on resistance to cuspal fracture in posterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 1987; 57(4):431-5. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(87)90008-4. View

17.

McLean J . Glass-ionomer cements. Br Dent J. 1988; 164(9):293-300. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4806434. View

18.

Cavel W, Kelsey W, Blankenau R . An in vivo study of cuspal fracture. J Prosthet Dent. 1985; 53(1):38-42. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(85)90061-7. View

19.

Chavan A, Darak P, Vallabhaneni S, Peerzade S, Shenvi S, Patil T . Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Four Different Materials in the Repair of Amalgam Restorations: An Study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2020; 21(7):741-747. View

20.

Sheth J, Fuller J, Jensen M . Cuspal deformation and fracture resistance of teeth with dentin adhesives and composites. J Prosthet Dent. 1988; 60(5):560-9. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(88)90215-6. View