Enhancing Wear Resistance in Glass Ionomer Cement through Green-mediated Chitosan-, Titanium-, Zirconium-, and Hydroxyapatite-based Nanocomposites: An Analysis before and after Chewing Simulator Endurance
Citation Information :
Sitaram SS, Paulraj J, Shanmugam R. Enhancing Wear Resistance in Glass Ionomer Cement through Green-mediated Chitosan-, Titanium-, Zirconium-, and Hydroxyapatite-based Nanocomposites: An Analysis before and after Chewing Simulator Endurance. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024; 17 (11):1229-1235.
Aim and background: Glass ionomer cement (GIC) serves as a widely used restorative dental material, known for its direct bonding to tooth structures and fluoride-releasing properties. This study aims to investigate the enhancement of GIC through the incorporation of a green-mediated nanocomposite comprising chitosan, titanium, zirconium, and hydroxyapatite, with a focus on evaluating the wear resistance of the modified GIC.
Materials and methods: A one-pot synthesis technique was utilized to prepare a green-mediated nanocomposite incorporating chitosan, titanium, zirconium, and hydroxyapatite nanoparticles. Forty extracted teeth fulfilling the inclusion criteria were chosen for the study. Each tooth received a class I cavity preparation, and then they were divided into groups. Each group, comprising 10 teeth, received a restoration using green-mediated nanocomposite-modified GIC in varying concentrations: 3% for group I, 5% for group II, and 10% for group III. Additionally, there was a control group (group IV) consisting of conventional GIC without any modifications. To assess the wear resistance of the samples, they underwent a testing protocol, followed by placement in a chewing simulator for 30,000 cycles. Surface scans before and after chewing simulation were conducted, and deviations were superimposed using Geomagic software. The interim of root mean square (RMS), maximum deviation, and average deviation were analyzed to quantify the wear levels. Then the data obtained were subjected to statistical analysis, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by Tukey's post hoc analysis to identify any significant differences among the groups.
Results: The least deviation of RMS (0.292 ± 0.063), maximum deviation (0.664 ± 0.076), and average deviation (0.263 ± 0.049) were observed in the 5% nanocomposite-based GIC group, followed by the 10 and 3% groups. The nanocomposite-modified GIC groups exhibited superior wear resistance compared to the conventional group. This outcome addressed the limitations of traditional GIC, signifying a substantial advancement in dental restorative solutions.
Conclusion: The incorporation of green-mediated chitosan, titanium, zirconium, and hydroxyapatite nanocomposite into GIC demonstrated a remarkable improvement in wear resistance. This study paves the way for future advancements in dental materials, representing a significant stride toward the creation of environmentally conscious and efficacious dental restorations.
Gunay A, Celenk S, Adiguzel O, et al. Comparison of antibacterial activity, cytotoxicity, and fluoride release of glass ionomer restorative dental cements in dentistry. Med Sci Monit 2023;29:e939065.
Mustafa HA, Soares AP, Paris S, et al. The forgotten merits of GIC restorations: a systematic review. Clin Oral Investig 2020;24(7):2189–2201.
Fricker JP. Therapeutic properties of glass-ionomer cements: their application to orthodontic treatment. Aust Dent J 2022;67(1):12–20.
Dezanetti JMP, Nascimento BL, Orsi JSR, et al. Effectiveness of glass ionomer cements in the restorative treatment of radiation-related caries—a systematic review. Support Care Cancer 2022;30(11):8667–8678.
Iaculli F, Salucci A, Di Giorgio G, et al. Bond strength of self-adhesive flowable composites and glass ionomer cements to primary teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies. Materials (Basel) 2021;14(21):6694.
Heintze SD, Loguercio AD, Hanzen TA, et al. Clinical efficacy of resin-based direct posterior restorations and glass-ionomer restorations - an updated meta-analysis of clinical outcome parameters. Dent Mater 2022;38(5):e109–e135.
Messer-Hannemann P, Samadi M, Böttcher H, et al. Evaluation of a method to determine wear resistance of class I tooth restorations during cyclic loading. Materials (Basel) 2022;15(15):5440.
World Health Organization. World Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines—22nd List, 2021. World Health Organization; Geneva, Switzerland: 2021.
Ivanišević A, Rajić VB, Pilipović A, et al. Compressive strength of conventional glass ionomer cement modified with TiO2 nano-powder and marine-derived HAp micro-powder. Materials (Basel) 2021;14(17):4964.
Moheet IA, Luddin N, Rahman IA, et al. Modifications of glass ionomer cement powder by addition of recently fabricated nano-fillers and their effect on the properties: a review. Eur J Dent 2019;13(3):470–477.
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, et al. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods 2009;41:1149–1160.
Saadat M, Moradian M, Mirshekari B. Evaluation of the surface hardness and roughness of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement containing bacterial cellulose nanocrystals. Int J Dent 2021;2021:8231473.
Rahman IAB. One-pot synthesis of hydroxyapatite–silica nanopowder composite for hardness enhancement of glass ionomer cement (GIC). Bull Mater Sci 2014;37(2):213–219.
Weigl P, Sander A, Wu Y, et al. In-vitro performance and fracture strength of thin monolithic zirconia crowns. J Adv Prosthodont 2018;10(2):79–84.
Frankenberger R, Dudek MC, Winter J, et al. Amalgam alternatives critically evaluated: effect of long-term thermomechanical loading on marginal quality, wear, and fracture behavior. J Adhes Dent 2020;22(1):107–116.
Baumgart P, Kirsten H, Haak R, et al. Biomechanical properties of polymer-infiltrated ceramic crowns on one-piece zirconia implants after long-term chewing simulation. Int J Implant Dent 2018;4(1):16.
Wassell RW, McCabe JF, Walls AW. A two-body frictional wear test. J Dent Res 1994;73(9):1546–1553.
Rosentritt M, Preis V, Behr M, et al. Two-body wear of dental porcelain and substructure oxide ceramics. Clin Oral Investig 2012;16(3):935–943.
Nawafleh N, Hatamleh M, Elshiyab S, et al. Lithium disilicate restorations fatigue testing parameters: a systematic review. J Prosthodont 2016;25:116–126.
Mohammadi N, Fattah Z, Borazjani LV. Nano-cellulose reinforced glass ionomer restorations: an in vitro study. Int Dent J 2023;73(2):243–250.
Neves AB, Lopes LIG, Bergstrom TG, et al. Porosity and pore size distribution in high-viscosity and conventional glass ionomer cements: a micro-computed tomography study. Restor Dent Endod 2021;46(4):e57.
Sainath Reddy TH, Venkatesh KV, Mani R. Comparative evaluation of three different glass ionomer cements. Indian J Dent Res 2021;32(4):485–488.
Nica I, Stoleriu S, Iovan A, et al. Conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cement surface characteristics after acidic challenges. Biomedicines 2022;10(7):1755.
Poorzandpoush K, Omrani LR, Jafarnia SH, et al. Effect of addition of nano hydroxyapatite particles on wear of resin modified glass ionomer by tooth brushing simulation. J Clin Exp Dent 2017;9(3):e372–e376.
Azmy E, Al-Kholy MRZ, Fattouh M, et al. Impact of nanoparticles additions on the strength of dental composite resin. Int J Biomater 2022;2022:1165431.
Heintze SD, Reichl FX, Hickel R. Wear of dental materials: clinical significance and laboratory wear simulation methods—a review. Dent Mater J 2019;38:343–353.
Sindhu JS, Maiti S, Nallaswamy D. Comparative analysis on efficiency and accuracy of parallel confocal microscopy and three-dimensional in motion video with triangulation technology-based intraoral scanner under influence of moisture and mouth opening – a crossover clinical trial. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2023;23:234–243.
Turssi CP, Faraoni JJ, de Menezes M, et al. Analysis of potential lubricants for in vitro wear testing. Dent Mater 2006;22:77–83.
Alvanforoush N, Wong R, Burrow M, et al. Fracture toughness of glass ionomers measured with two different methods. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2019;90:208–216.
R S, Maiti S, P J. Comparative analysis of abrasion resistance in relation to different temporary acrylic crown material using toothbrush simulator—an in vitro study. Int J Dentistry Oral Sci 2021;8(4):2153–2215.
Neha N, Maiti S, Jessy P. Adhesion of microflora and the role of dentifrices in color stability on provisional crowns: an in vitro study. Int J Dentistry Oral Sci 2021;8(8):3805–3809. DOI: 10.19070/2377-8075-21000780
Pavithra AS, Paulraj J, Rajeshkumar S, et al. Comparative evaluation of antimicrobial activity and compressive strength of conventional and thyme-modified glass ionomer cement. Ann Dent Spec 2023;11(1):70–77. DOI: 10.51847/FrmCSw6TqP
Paulraj J, Nagar P. Antimicrobial efficacy of triphala and propolis-modified glass ionomer cement: an in vitro study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2020;13(5):457–462. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1806
Zhou ZR, Zheng J. Tribology of dental materials: a review. J Phys D Appl Phys 2008;41:1130.