International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  18 (2025)
Volume  17 (2024)
Volume  16 (2023)
Volume  15 (2022)
Volume  14 (2021)
Volume  13 (2020)
Volume  12 (2019)
Volume  11 (2018)
Volume  10 (2017)
Volume  9 (2016)
Volume  8 (2015)
Volume  7 (2014)
Volume  6 (2013)
Volume  5 (2012)
Volume  4 (2011)
Volume  3 (2010)
Volume  2 (2009)
Volume  1 (2008)
Related articles

VOLUME 18 , ISSUE 2 ( February, 2025 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparative Evaluation of Fluoride Release/Uptake and Physical Properties of Self-adhesive GC Gold Label Hybrid and Antibiotic-modified Glass Ionomer Cement: An In Vitro Study

Vasanthi Done, Satyakeerthana Battu, Madhu Ghanasyam Prasad, Suzan Sahana, Saraswathi Kanaparthi

Keywords : Compressive strength, Fluoride release, GC gold label hybrid, Glass ionomer cement, Setting time

Citation Information : Done V, Battu S, Prasad MG, Sahana S, Kanaparthi S. Comparative Evaluation of Fluoride Release/Uptake and Physical Properties of Self-adhesive GC Gold Label Hybrid and Antibiotic-modified Glass Ionomer Cement: An In Vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2025; 18 (2):146-152.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-3052

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 20-03-2025

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2025; The Author(s).


Abstract

Background: Scientific research continues to make progress in identifying the best practices for treating and preventing dental caries. The quest to search for an ideal restorative material has been a challenge for researchers and academicians in the fraternity of restorative dentistry. Materials and methods: A total of 90 restorative specimens were prepared and divided into two groups comprising 45 samples each: gold label hybrid (group I) and antibiotic-modified glass ionomer cement (GIC) (group II). Each group was further subdivided into three groups of 15 samples each for the evaluation of compressive strength, setting time, and fluoride release, respectively. GC label hybrid was designated as group I, and an antibiotic mixture consisting of ciprofloxacin and metronidazole (1:1) was added at 1% concentration to conventional GIC (Fuji II), which served as group II. The compressive strength was evaluated using a universal testing machine with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/minute. The setting time was measured using Vicat's apparatus. Fluoride release was evaluated using an ion-selective electrode. The data were statistically analyzed. Results: The results showed a p-value of 0.001, signifying a statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of compressive strength, setting time, and fluoride release after 24 hours and after 1 week. Conclusion: It can be concluded that antibiotic-modified GIC showed the best in vitro performance with improved characteristics, such as higher compressive strength, faster setting time, and enhanced fluoride release.

PDF Share
  1. Ahluwalia P, Chopra S, Thomas AM. Strength characteristics and marginal sealing ability of chlorhexidine-modified glass ionomer cement: an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2012;30(1):41.
  2. Moses J, Rangeeth BN, Gurunathan D. Prevalence of dental caries, socio-economic status and treatment needs among 5 to 15-year-old school going children of Chidambaram. J Clin Diagn Res 2011;5(1):146.
  3. Joshi KH, Gonapa P, Tiriveedi R, et al. Assessment of flexural and compressive strengths of EQUIA, GC Gold Hybrid, and conventional GIC restorative materials. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2023;15:S1175.
  4. Prabhakar AR, Prahlad D, Kumar SR. Antibacterial activity, fluoride release, and physical properties of an antibiotic-modified glass ionomer cement. Pediatr Dent 2013;35(5):411.
  5. Singh TM, Suresh P, Sandhyarani J, et al. Glass ionomer cements (GIC) in dentistry: a review. IJPAES 2011;1:26–30.
  6. Mittal S, Soni H, Sharma DK, et al. Comparative evaluation of the antibacterial and physical properties of conventional glass ionomer cement containing chlorhexidine and antibiotics. J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent 2015;5:268.
  7. Pinheiro SL, Simionato MR, Imparato JC, et al. Antibacterial activity of glass-ionomer cement containing antibiotics on caries lesion microorganisms. Am J Dent 2005;18:261.
  8. Deepalakshmi M, Poorni S, Miglani R, et al. Evaluation of the antibacterial and physical properties of glass ionomer cements containing chlorhexidine and cetrimide: an in-vitro study. Indian J Dent Res 2010;21(4):552.
  9. Sujith R, Yadav TG, Pitalia D, et al. Comparative evaluation of mechanical and microleakage properties of Cention-N, composite, and glass ionomer cement restorative materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020;21(6):691.
  10. Bhattacharya P. Comparative Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength and Flexural Strength of New Zirconia Reinforced Glass Ionomer Cement with Commonly Used Glass Ionomer Cements Used in Atraumatic Restorative Treatment-An in Vitro Study (Master's Thesis, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (India).
  11. Vaid DS, Shah NC, Bilgi PS. One-year comparative clinical evaluation of EQUIA with resin-modified glass ionomer and a nanohybrid composite in noncarious cervical lesions. J Conserv Dent 2015;18(6):449–452.
  12. Friedl K, Hiller KA, Friedl KH. Clinical performance of a new glass ionomer-based restoration system: a retrospective cohort study. Dent Mater 2011;27(10):1031.
  13. Malhotra S, Bhullar KK, Kaur S, et al. Comparative evaluation of compressive strength and flexural strength of GC Gold Hybrid, GIC conventional and resin-modified glass-ionomer cement. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2022;14:S214.
  14. Chandana PS, Munaga S, Reddy MN, et al. Evaluation of compressive strength for a combination of glass ionomer cement and antibiotics. J Orofac Res 2013;3(4):245.
  15. Poornima P, Koley P, Kenchappa M, et al. Comparative evaluation of compressive strength and surface microhardness of EQUIA Forte, resin-modified glass-ionomer cement with conventional glass-ionomer cement. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2019;37(3):265.
  16. Yip HK, Smales RJ, Ngo HC, et al. Selection of restorative materials for the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach: a review. Special Care Dent 2001;21(6):216.
  17. Frencken JE, Pilot T, Songpaisan Y, et al. Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART): rationale, technique, and development. J Public Health Dent 1996;56(3):135–140.
  18. Ericson D, Kidd E, McComb D, et al. Minimally invasive dentistry—concepts and techniques in cariology. Oral Health Prev Dent 2003;1(1):59.
  19. Sidhu SK. Glass ionomer cement restorative materials: a sticky subject? Aust Dent J 2011;56(Suppl 1):23–30.
  20. de Lima Navarro MF, Pascotto RC, Borges AF, et al. Consensus on glass-ionomer cement thresholds for restorative indications. J Dent 2021;107:103609.
  21. El-Bialy MR, Shaalan OO, El-Zohairy AA, et al. Clinical evaluation of glass ionomer with glass hybrid technology versus conventional high viscosity glass ionomer in class I cavities in patients with high caries risk: randomized controlled trial. Int J Oral Health Dent 2020;12(3):203.
  22. Prasad MP, Maradia MA. Antibacterial activity of conventional and modified glass ionomer cement against Streptococcus mutans. J Appl Biotech 2014;2(3):17–20.
  23. Panigrahi A, Sudeep S, Sharma S, et al. Comparative evaluation of fluoride recharge ability of conventional and hydroxyapatite modified glass ionomer cement with daily low fluoride exposure-an invitro study. JCDR 2016;10(2):ZC53.
  24. Yesilyurt CE, Er K, Tasdemir T, et al. Antibacterial activity and physical properties of glass-ionomer cements containing antibiotics. Oper Dent 2009;34(1):18–23.
  25. Sirnoglu-capan B, Akyuz S, Buric AL, et al. In vitro fluoride-release/recharge pattern and antimicrobial effects of current restorative materials used in pediatric dentistry. Experimed 2020;10(1):7–15.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.