Citation Information :
Singh S. A Comparative Evaluation of Sorption, Solubility, and Compressive Strength of Three Different Glass Ionomer Cements in Artificial Saliva: An in vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2017; 10 (1):49-54.
Aim: To evaluate and compare the sorption, solubility, and compressive strength of three different glass ionomer cements in artificial saliva – type IX glass ionomer cement, silverreinforced glass ionomer cement, and zirconia-reinforced glass ionomer cement, so as to determine the material of choice for stress-bearing areas.
Materials and methods: A total of 90 cylindrical specimens (4 mm diameter and 6 mm height) were prepared for each material following the manufacturer\'s instructions. After subjecting the specimens to thermocycling, 45 specimens were immersed in artificial saliva for 24 hours for compressive strength testing under a universal testing machine, and the other 45 were evaluated for sorption and solubility, by first weighing them by a precision weighing scale (W1), then immersing them in artificial saliva for 28 days and weighing them (W2), and finally dehydrating in an oven for 24 hours and weighing them (W3).
Results: Group III (zirconomer) shows the highest compressive strength followed by group II (Miracle Mix) and least compressive strength is seen in group I (glass ionomer cement type IX-Extra) with statistically significant differences between the groups. The sorption and solubility values in artificial saliva were highest for glass ionomer cement type IX – Extra-GC (group I) followed by zirconomer-Shofu (group III), and the least value was seen for Miracle Mix-GC (group II).
Conclusion: Zirconia-reinforced glass ionomer cement is a promising dental material and can be used as a restoration in stress-bearing areas due to its high strength and low solubility and sorption rate. It may be a substitute for silver-reinforced glass ionomer cement due to the added advantage of esthetics.
Clinical significance: This study provides vital information to pediatric dental surgeons on relatively new restorative materials as physical and mechanical properties of the new material are compared with conventional materials to determine the best suited material in terms of durability, strength and dimensional stability.
This study will boost confidence among dental surgeons in terms of handling characteristics, cost effectiveness and success rate.
This study will help clinically and scientifically; pediatric dental surgeons to use this material in stress-bearing areas in pediatric patients.
Holmstrom SE. Restorative materials. Australian Dental & Oral Health Therapist's Association Inc. J Vet Dent 1991 Mar;8(1):12-15.
Terry DA. Esthetic & restorative dentistry. 2nd ed. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc.; 2012.
Wilson AD, Kent BE. A new translucent cement for dentistry. The glass ionomer cement. Br Dent J 1972 Feb 15;132(4): 13-5.
Upadhya PN, Kishore G. Glass ionomer cement – the different generations. Trends Biomater Artif Organs 2005 Jan;18(2): 158-165.
Asharaf S, Karthigeyen S, Deivanai M, Mani R. Zirconia: properties and application – a review. Pak Oral Dent J 2014 Mar;34(1):178-184.
Gupta G, Gupta T. Evaluation of the effect of various beverages and food material on the color stability of provisional materials – an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2011 Jul-Sep;14(3): 287-292.
ADA. Professional product review laboratory testing methods: Core materials. Am Dent Assoc 2008;3(4):1-18.
Yu H, Zheng M, Chen R, Cheng H. Proper selection of contemporary dental cements. Oral Health Dent Manag 2014 Mar;13(1):54-59.
Patel MU, Punia SK, Bhat S, Singh G, Bhargava R, Goyal P, Oza S, Raiyani CM. An in vitro evaluation of microleakage of posterior teeth restored with amalgam, composite and zirconomer – a stereomicroscopic study. J Clin Diagnostic Res 2015 Jul;9(7):65-67.
Sehgal K, Bida L. Zirconia: a promising alternative to metals in dentistry. Indian J Dent Sci 2013 Jun;5(2):145-148.
Prabhakar AR, Thejokrishna P, Kurthukoti AJ. A comparative evaluation of four restorative materials to support undermined occlusal enamel of permanent teeth. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2006 Sep;24(3):122-126.
Negm MM, Beech DR, Grant AA. An evaluation of mechanical and adhesive properties of polycarboxylate and glass ionomer cements. J Oral Rehabil 1982 Mar;9(2):161-167.
Anstice HM, Nicholson JW, McCabe JF. The effect of using layered specimens for determination of the compressive strength of glass ionomer cements. J Dent Res 1992 Dec;71(12):1871-1874.
Cattani-Lorente MA, Godin C, Meyer JM. Early strength of glass ionomer cements. Dent Mater 1993 Jan;9(1):57-62.
Dimkov A, Nicholson WJ, Gjorgievska E, Booth S. Compressive strength and setting time determination of glass ionomer cements incorporated with cetylpyridinium chloride and benzalkonium chloride. Sec Biol Med Sci 2012;33(1): 243-263.
Krämer N, Frankenberger R. Clinical performance of a condensable metal reinforced glass ionomer cement in primary molars. Br Dent J 2001 Mar;190(6):317-321.
Yap AUJ, Cheang PHN, Chay PL. Mechanical properties of two restorative reinforced glass ionomer cements. J Oral Rehabil 2002 Jul;29(7):682-689.
Croll TP, Nicholson JW. Glass ionomer cements in pediatric dentistry: review of the literature. Pediatr Dent 2002 Sep-Oct;24(5):423-429.
Meşe A, Burrow MF, Tyas MJ. Sorption and solubility of luting cements in different solutions. Dent Mater J 2008 Sep;27(5):702-709.
Benhameurlain M, Qahtani MQ. Water Sorption and Desorption of Different Types of direct tooth colored Restorative Materials. Pakistan Oral & Dental Journal 2010;30(2):476-80.
Sidhu SK. Glass ionomer cement restorative materials: a sticky subject? Aust Dent J 2011 Jun;56(Suppl 1):23-30.