Comparative Evaluation of Compressive Strength of Self-cure, Dual-cure, and Light-cure Glass Ionomer Cements in a Simulated Oral Environment: An In Vitro Study
TP Chandru, Sruthi Chandran, Faizal C Peedikayil, Soni Kottayi, TP Aparna, Athira Aravind
Citation Information :
Chandru T, Chandran S, Peedikayil FC, Kottayi S, Aparna T, Aravind A. Comparative Evaluation of Compressive Strength of Self-cure, Dual-cure, and Light-cure Glass Ionomer Cements in a Simulated Oral Environment: An In Vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2023; 16 (5):707-710.
Background: In primary dentition, glass ionomer cements (GICs) have unique benefits as a restorative material. Various types of GICs are available in the market. In pediatric dentistry, the choice of GI materials is generally focused on handling convenience with adequate consideration for mechanical qualities, including compressive strength to withstand occlusal stresses in the oral environment.
Aim of the study: To evaluate the compressive strength of self-cure, dual-cure, and light-cure GI-based cements using a universal testing machine.
Materials and methods: The study population comprised 30 cylindrical restorative blocks for compressive strength assessment. The restorative materials used for the studies were self-cure GIC (ChemFil Rock and GC Fuji IX GP Fast GIC), dual-cure GIC (Equia Forte and Ionolux GIC), and light-cure GIC (GC Fuji II LC and Ketac N 100 GIC). The cylindrical blocks were prepared using prefabricated Teflon mold measuring 4 mm diameter and 6 mm height from respective restorative materials and divided into three major groups and were subdivided into six groups comprising two materials in each group. Using an Instron universal testing machine, compressive strength was assessed. Data obtained were tabulated, and statistical analysis was done using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS v22.0) software.
Results: On individual comparison of GI-based types of cement, Ketac N100 GIC showed the highest compressive strength, and Fuji IX GP Fast GIC showed the least compressive strength.
Conclusion: Light-cure GIC exhibited the highest compressive strength in comparison to dual-cure and self-cure GICs with regard to the nature of curing.
Strassler HE, Fadm F. Glass ionomers for direct-placement restorations. Dent Econ 2011;14.
Bakhadher W. Modification of glass ionomer restorative material: a review of literature. EC Dent Sci 2019;18:1001–1006.
Cehreli SB, Tirali RE, Yalcinkaya Z, et al. Microleakage of newly developed glass carbomer cement in primary teeth. Eur J Dent 2013;7(1):15–21.
AlOtaibi G. Recent advancements in glass ionomer materials with introduction of nanotechnology: a review. Int J Oral Care Res 2019;7(1):21–23. DOI: 10.4103/INJO.INJO_17_19
Lyapina MG, Tzekova M, Dencheva M, et al. Nano-glass-ionomer cements in modern restorative dentistry. J IMAB 2016;22(2):1160–1165. DOI: 10.5272/jimab.2016222.1160
Baby S, Ummar A, Mathew J, et al. Comparative study on the compressive strength of a new ceramic reinforced glass ionomer (Amalgomer CR) and resin coated high strength glass ionomer cement (Equia Forte) with a nanohybrid composite material (Tetric N Ceram) in a simulated oral environment: an in vitro study. Cons Dent Endod J 2018;3(2):40–44. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10048-0037
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
Bhattacharya A, Vaidya S, Tomer AK, et al. Evaluation and comparison of physical properties and fluoride release of newly introduced ceramic reinforced glass-ionomer restorative material with other glass ionomer cements–an in vitro study. Int J Appl Dent Sci 2017;3(4):486–492.
Alzraikat H, Maghaireh GA, Zawaideh FI. Physico-mechanical properties of a nanofilled glass ionomer cement. J Res Med Dent Sci 2016;4(3):270–274. DOI: 10.5455/jrmds.20164320
Shah V, Dave B, Bargale S, et al. A comparative evaluation of clinical performance of conventional and light cured glass ionomer cement in class I carious lesions in primary molars- a split mouth randomized clinical study. IJDR 2018;8(12):24566–24573.
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. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.168805
Fan PL, Edahl A, Leung RL, et al. Alternative interpretations of water sorption values of composite resins. J Dent Res 1985;64(1):78–80. DOI: 10.1177/00220345850640011601
Kutuk ZB, Ozturk C, Cakir FY, et al. Mechanical performance of a newly developed glass hybrid restorative in the restoration of large MO Class 2 cavities. Niger J Clin Pract 2019;22(6):833–841. DOI: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_628_18
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):265–270. DOI: 10.4103/JISPPD.JISPPD_342_18
Giray FE, Peker S, Durmus B, et al. Microleakage of new glass ionomer restorative materials in permanent teeth. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2014;15(2):122–126.
Seirawan MY, Doumani M, Seirawan MK, et al. Compressive strength of three different restorative materials (in vitro study). Int J Oral Care Res 2019;7(1):4. DOI: 10.4103/INJO.INJO_13_19
Gururaj M, Shetty R, Nayak M, et al. Fluoride releasing and uptake capacities of esthetic restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013;14(5):887–891. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1421
Dowling AH, Fleming GJ, McGinley EL, et al. Improving the standard of the standard for glass ionomers: an alternative to the compressive fracture strength test for consideration? J Dent 2012;40(3):189–201. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2011.12.002
Molina GF, Cabral RJ, Mazzola I, et al. Mechanical performance of encapsulated restorative glass-ionomer cements for use with atraumatic restorative treatment (ART). J Appl Oral Sci 2013;21(3):243–249. DOI: 10.1590/1679-775720130129
Gjorgievska E, Van Tendeloo G, Nicholson JW, et al. The incorporation of nanoparticles into conventional glass-ionomer dental restorative cements. Microsc Microanal 2015;21(2):392–406. DOI: 10.1017/S1431927615000057
Soliman TA, Othman MS. Mechanical properties of the new ketac™ universal glass ionomer restorative material: effect of resin coating. Egypt Dent J 2017;63(10):1027–1035. DOI: 10.21608/edj.2017.75257
Arjomand ME, Eghlim MH, Jalalian SH, et al. Effects of aging on compressive strength of two resin-reinforced glass ionomers: an in-vitro study. J Res Dent Maxillfilac Sci 2019;4(3):15–20.
