An In Vivo Evaluation of Retention and Antibacterial Efficacy of Posterior High Strength Glass Ionomer Cement and Glass Hybrid Bulk-fill Alkasite Restorative Material as Conservative Adhesive Restoration in Children with Mixed Dentition: A Comparative Study
Sanjana P Soneta, Shivayogi M Hugar, Seema Hallikerimath, Riddhi S Joshi, Pooja K Dialani, Neha Kohli
Citation Information :
Soneta SP, Hugar SM, Hallikerimath S, Joshi RS, Dialani PK, Kohli N. An In Vivo Evaluation of Retention and Antibacterial Efficacy of Posterior High Strength Glass Ionomer Cement and Glass Hybrid Bulk-fill Alkasite Restorative Material as Conservative Adhesive Restoration in Children with Mixed Dentition: A Comparative Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2022; 15 (5):529-534.
Aim: The aim of the study was to compare and evaluate the retention and antibacterial efficacy of posterior high strength glass ionomer cement and glass hybrid bulk-fill alkasite restorative material as a conservative adhesive restoration in children with mixed dentition.
Materials and methods: A total of 60 children of age 6–12 years with mixed dentition were selected and divided into group I (control group n = 30): posterior high strength glass ionomer cement and group II (experimental group n = 30): glass hybrid bulk-fill alkasite restorative material. Restorative treatment was carried out using these two materials. Retention of the material and salivary Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus species count was estimated at baseline, 1, 3, and 6 months. The collected data were statistically analyzed using International Business Machines (IBM) Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software (version 20.0 Chicago, Illinois, USA)
Results: About 100% retention of glass hybrid bulk-fill alkasite restorative material, and 90% retention of posterior high strength glass ionomer cement was observed according to United State Public Health Criteria. The * signifies statistically significant results, i.e. p < 0.0001 reduction in salivary S. mutans colony count and Lactobacillus species colony count was seen in both groups at different time intervals.
Conclusion: Both the materials showed good antibacterial properties, but glass hybrid bulk-fill alkasite restorative showed better retention, that is, 100% when compared to posterior high strength glass ionomer cement, which showed 90% retention at the end of 6 months follow-up.
Petersen PE, Bourgeois D, Ogawa H, et al. The global burden of oral diseases and risks to oral health. Bull World Health Organ 2005;83(9):661–669. DOI: 10.1590/S0042-96862005000900011
Hugar SM, Kohli D, Badakar CM, et al. Comparative assessment of conventional composites and coloured compomers in permanent molars of children with mixed dentition: a pilot study. J Clin Diag Res 2017;11(6):ZC69–ZC72. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2017/25596.10083
Qin M, Liu HS. Clinical evaluation of a flowable resin composite and flowable compomer for preventive resin restorations. Oper Dent 2005;30(5):580–587.
Cho SY, Cheng AC. A review of glass ionomer restorations in the primary dentition. J Can Dent Assoc 1999;65(9):491–495.
Ivoclar Vivadent. Cention N (Scientific Documentation). Australia: Ivoclar Vivadent.2016.
Viechtbauer W, Smits L, Kotz D, et al. A simple formula for the calculation of sample size in pilot studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2015;68(11):1375–1379. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.04.014
World Health Organization. Oral Health Surveys: Basic Methods. 4th ed. Geneva: World Heatlh organization, 1997.
Navazesh M. Methods for collecting saliva. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1993;694:72–77. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb18343.x
Dawes C. Circadian rhythms in human salivary flow rate and composition. J Physiol 1972;220(3):529–545. DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.1972.sp009721
Bayne SC, Schmalz G. Reprinting the classic article on USPHS evaluation methods for measuring the clinical research performance of restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig 2005;9(4):209–214. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-005-0017-0
MM J,NK B,A P. Minimal intervention dentistry–a new frontier in clinical dentistry. J Clin Diag Res 2014;8(7):ZE04–ZE08. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2014/9128.4583
Ebrahimi M, Ajami Molook BA, Shirazi Sarraf AR, et al. Dental treatment needs of permanent first molars in Mashhad schoolchildren. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospec 2010;4(2):52–55. DOI: 10.5681/joddd.2010.014
Yeolekar TS, Chowdhary NR, Mukunda KS, et al. Evaluation of microleakage and marginal ridge fracture resistance of primary molars restored with three restorative materials: a comparative in vitro study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2015;8(2):108–113. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1294
Gupta N, Jaiswal S,Nikhil V, et al. Comparison of fluoride ion release and alkalizing potential of a new bulk-fill alkasite. J Conserv Dent 2019;22(3):296–299. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_74_19
Kaur M, Mann NS, Jhamb A, et al. A comparative evaluation of compressive strength of Cention N with glass ionomer cement: an in-vitro study. Int J Appl Dent Sci 2019;5(1):5–9.
Iftikhar N, Devashish, Srivastava B, et al. A comparative evaluation of mechanical properties of four different restorative materials: an in vitro study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2019;12(1):47–49.
Mishra A, Singh G, Singh SK, et al. Comparative evaluation of mechanical properties of Cention N with conventionally used restorative materials—an in vitro study. Int J Prosth and Rest Dent 2018;8(4):120–124. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1219
Meshram P, Meshram V, Palve D, et al. Comparative evaluation of microleakage around class V cavities restored with alkasite restorative material with and without bonding agent and flowable composite resin: an in vitro study. Ind J Dent Res 2019;30(3):403–407. DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_767_17
Ngo H, Opsahl-Vital S. Minimal intervention dentistry II: part 7. Minimal intervention in cariology: the role of glass-ionomer cements in the preservation of tooth structures against caries. Br Dent J 2014;216(10):561–565. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2014.398
Loyola-Rodriguez JP, Garcia-Godoy F, Lindquist R. Growth inhibition of glass ionomer cements on mutants Streptococci. Pediatr Dent 1994;16(5):346–349.
Khere CH, Hiremath H, Sandesh N, et al. Evaluation of antibacterial activity of three different glass ionomer cements on Streptococcus mutans: an in-vitro antimicrobial study. Med Pharm Rep 2019;92(3):288–293. DOI: 10.15386/mpr-1113