International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 15 , ISSUE 2 ( March-April, 2022 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparative Evaluation of Water Sorption, Solubility, and Microhardness of Zirconia-reinforced Glass Ionomer, Resin-modified Glass Ionomer, and Type IX Glass Ionomer Restorative Materials: An In Vitro Study

Dinah Rachel Bethapudy, Chetan Bhat, Laxmi Lakade, Shweta Chaudhary, Sanket Kunte, Smita Patil

Keywords : Artificial saliva, Microhardness, Type IX glass ionomer cement, Vitremer, Water sorption, Water solubility, Zirconomer

Citation Information : Bethapudy DR, Bhat C, Lakade L, Chaudhary S, Kunte S, Patil S. Comparative Evaluation of Water Sorption, Solubility, and Microhardness of Zirconia-reinforced Glass Ionomer, Resin-modified Glass Ionomer, and Type IX Glass Ionomer Restorative Materials: An In Vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2022; 15 (2):175-181.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2364

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-04-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Abstract

The challenge that practicing dentists face every day is to decide which dental material is best suited for each dental treatment. New glass-ionomer cement (GIC) formulations have been introduced in order to overcome the drawbacks of conventional ones thereby catering to the needs of the pediatric population. Aim and objective: The study aimed to evaluate and compare water sorption, solubility, and microhardness of zirconia-reinforced glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, type IX glass ionomer cements. Materials and methods: 90 specimens were prepared in total of which 45 cylindrical specimens with dimensions of (6 × 4) mm and 45 disks with (10 × 2) mm were prepared from Zirconomer, RMGIC, and Type IX GIC restorative materials, each material having 30 specimens (15 disks, 15 cylinders). After taking the initial weight (W1), the 45 cylinders (15 of each material) were immersed in artificial saliva at 37°C for 28 days after which the weights W2 and W3 were weighed. The other 45 disks (15 of each material) were subjected to microhardness test under microhardness tester. Results were subjected to ANOVA and Tuckey\'s post hoc test. Results: Zirconomer showed the maximum resistance to water sorption and solubility followed by RMGIC and type IX GIC with a significant p value of < 0.001 difference. For microhardness, Zirconomer showed the highest value with a significant p value of < 0.001 difference. But, there was no significant difference between RMGIC and Type IX GIC depicting almost equal strength. Conclusion: Water sorption, solubility, and microhardness of Zirconomer were significantly high in comparison to the other groups and it can be used as a posterior restorative material for stress-bearing areas. Clinical significance: As pediatric dentistry demands restorations to be completed frequently in less than ideal conditions, Zirconomer has shown to be better than RMGIC and conventional GIC probably because of the improvisation in the GIC properties.


PDF Share
  1. Croll TP, Nicholson JW. Glass ionomer cements in pediatric dentistry: review of the literature. Pediatr Dent 2002;24(5):423–429.
  2. Khouw-Liu VH, Anstice HM, Pearson GJ. An in vitro investigation of a poly (vinyl phosphonic acid) based cement with four conventional glass-ionomer cements. Part 1: flexural strength and fluoride release. J Dent 1999;27(5):351–357. DOI: 10.1016/s0300-5712(98)00061-x
  3. Webman M, Mulki E, Roldan R, et al. A retrospective study of the 3-year survival rate of resin-modified glass-ionomer cement class II restorations in primary molars. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016;40(1):8–13. DOI: 10.17796/1053-4628-40.1.8
  4. Bhatia HP, Singh S, Sood S, et al. 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. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1407
  5. Rawat P. Glass-Ionomer Cement: A Magical Genie For All Restorative Needs. J Applied Dent Med Sci 2016; 2(3): 148–157.
  6. Cheng AC. A review of glass ionomer restorations in the primary dentition. J Can Dent Assoc 2001;65:491–495.
  7. Volpato CM, Garbelotto LG, Fredel MC, et al. Application of zirconia in dentistry: biological, mechanical and optical considerations. Advances in ceramics- electric and magnetic ceramics, bioceramics, ceramics and environment 2011;2: 397–404. DOI: 10.5772/21630
  8. Croll TP, Helpin ML, Donly KJ. Vitremer restorative cement for children: three clinicians’ observations in three al practicespediatric dentASDC J Dent Child 2000;67(6):391–398.
  9. Gerdolle DA, Mortier E, Jacquot B, et al. Water sorption and water solubility of current luting cements: An in vitro study. Quintessence Int 2008;39(3):107–114.
  10. Von Fraunhofer JA, Curtis Jr P. The physical and mechanical properties of anterior and posterior composite restorative materials. Dent Mater 1989;5(6):365–368. DOI: 10.1016/0109-5641(89)90100-0
  11. Heshmat H, Banava S, Zarandi P, et al. In-vitro evaluation of water sorption and solubility of G-Cem and FujiCem in water and acid. J Islamic Dent Assoc Iran 2013;25(4):249–254.
  12. Cattani-Lorente MA, Dupuis V, Payan J, et al. Effect of water on the physical properties of resin-modified glass ionomer cements. Dent Mater 1999;15(1):71–78. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(99)00016-0
  13. Percq A, Dubois D, Nicholson JW. Water transport in resin-modified glass-ionomer dental cement. J Biomater Appl 2008;23(3):263–273. DOI: 10.1177/0885328208088863
  14. Elkhade AH. Zirconomer and Zirconomer Improved (White Amalgams): Restorative Materials for the Future. Review. EC Dent Sci 2017; 15(4):134–150.
  15. Eisenburger M, Addy M, Rossbach A. Acidic solubility of luting cements. J Dent 2003;31(2):137–142. DOI: 10.1016/s0300-5712(03)00002-2
  16. Nicholson JW. Chemistry of glass-ionomer cements: a review. Biomaterials 1998;19: 485–494. DOI: 10.1016/s0142-9612(97)00128-2
  17. Gu YW, Yap AU, Cheang P, et al. Zirconia–glass ionomer cement––a potential substitute for Miracle Mix. Scripta Materialia 2005;52(2):113–116. DOI: 10.1016/j.scriptamat.2004.09.019
  18. Sundh A, Molin M, Sjögren G. Fracture resistance of yttrium oxide partially stabilized zirconia all-ceramic bridges after veneering and mechanical fatigue testing. Dent Mater 2005;21(5):476–482.
  19. Kakaboura A, Eliades G, Palaghias G. An FTIR study on the setting mechanism of resin-modified glass ionomer restoratives. Dent Mater 1996;12(3):173–178.
  20. Elbahrawy EM, Rahim RA. Effect of addition of chitosan on water sorption, solubility and microhardness of glass ionomer cement. Tanta Dental J 2017;14(3):164–168. DOI: 10.4103/tdj.tdj_26_17
  21. Crisp S, Wilson AD. Reactions in glass ionomer cements: I. Decomposition of the powder. J Dent Res 1974;53(6): 1408–1413.
  22. Lokhande P, Shivanna V. Comparative Evaluation of microhardness of type 2 Glass Ionomer Cement (restorative) and Zirconia based GIC - An In-Vitro Study. CODS J Dent 2015;7(1):0–7. DOI: 10.5005/cods-7-1-4
  23. Patil KM, Hambire UV. Comparative Evaluation of Compressive, Flexural Strength and Micro Hardness of Different Dental Materials. Int J Sci Res Dev 2016; 4(4):444–448.
  24. Silva RC, Zuanon AC, Esberard RR, et al. In vitro microhardness of glass ionomer cements. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2007;18(1):139–142. DOI: 10.1007/s10856-006-0672-y
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.