Comparative Evaluation of Surface Microhardness of Zirconia-reinforced Glass Ionomer Cement and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement after Immersion in an Acidic Drink: An In Vitro Study
Citation Information :
Kour T, Shahi P, Sogi S, Kapoor R, Jain N, Gambhir A. Comparative Evaluation of Surface Microhardness of Zirconia-reinforced Glass Ionomer Cement and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement after Immersion in an Acidic Drink: An In Vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2025; 18 (1):6-12.
Background: Microhardness is one of the most imperative physical characteristics for comparative study of dental material. Under acidic conditions, restorative materials experience degradation over time, which can be envisaged by changes in the surface characteristics such as downturn in hardness. Thus, we aim to assess the effect of acidic drink on microhardness of zirconia-reinforced glass ionomer cement (GIC) and conventional GIC.
Materials and methods: Zirconia-reinforced GIC and conventional GIC were chosen for this present study. A total of 60 study pellets were prepared and divided into two groups. Group A consisted of 30 pellets of zirconia-reinforced GIC and group B consisted of 30 pellets of conventional GIC. Baseline readings of microhardness were taken by Vickers hardness testing machine. The samples of groups A and B were further divided into three subgroups. Subgroup 1: immersed in distilled water for 1 day (control). Subgroup 2: immersed in Coca-Cola for 1 day. Subgroup 3: immersed in Coca-Cola for 7 days. Surface hardness values were recorded after 1 day for subgroups 1 and 2 and after 7 days for subgroup 3.
Results: The surface microhardness of zirconia-reinforced GIC was significantly higher than conventional GIC when intergroup comparison was made. There was no statistically significant difference in microhardness of both conventional GIC and zirconia-reinforced GIC from baseline values after 1 day of immersion either in distilled water or Coca-Cola. Microhardness of both conventional GIC and zirconia-reinforced GIC showed a significant rise from baseline after immersion in Coca-Cola after 7 days.
Conclusion: Both the materials tested resisted acidic challenge; however, zirconia-reinforced GIC showed greater microhardness and can be considered as an alternative material of choice for conventional GIC.
Schmidt J, Huang B. Awareness and knowledge of dental erosion and its association with beverage consumption: a multidisciplinary survey. BMC Oral Health 2022;22(1):35.
Maganur PDC, Prabhakar AR, Sugandhan S, et al. Evaluation of microleakage of RMGIC and flowable composite immersed in soft drink and fresh fruit juice: an in vitro study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2010;3(3):153–161.
Xavier AM, Sunny SM, Rai K, et al. Repeated exposure of acidic beverages on esthetic restorative materials: an in-vitro surface microhardness study. J Clin Exp Dent 2016;8(3):e312–e317.
Soares LE, Soares AL, De Oliveira R, et al. The effects of acid erosion and remineralization on enamel and three different dental materials: FT-Raman spectroscopy and scanning electron microscopy analysis. Microsc Res Tech 2016;79(7):646–656.
Aliping-McKenzie M, Linden RWA, Nicholson JW. The effect of Coca-Cola and fruit juices on the surface hardness of glass-ionomers and ‘compomers’. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31:1046–1052.
Colombo M, Poggio C, Lasagna A, et al. Vickers micro-hardness of new restorative CAD/CAM dental materials: evaluation and comparison after exposure to acidic drink. Materials (Basel) 2019;12(8):1246.
Briso AL, Caruzo LP, Guedes AP, et al. In vitro evaluation of surface roughness and microhardness of restorative materials submitted to erosive challenges. Oper Dent 2011;36(4):397–402.
Bala O, Arisu HD, Yikilgan I, et al. Evaluation of surface roughness and hardness of different glass ionomer cements. Eur J Dent 2012;6(1):79–86.
Lagisetti AK, Hegde P, Hegde MN. Evaluation of bioceramics and zirconia-reinforced glass ionomer cement in repair of furcation perforations: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2018;21:184–189.
Verma V, Mathur S, Sachdev V, et al. Evaluation of compressive strength, shear bond strength, and microhardness values of glass-ionomer cement type IX and cention N. J Conserv Dent 2020;23:550–553.
Adsul PS, Dhawan P, Tuli A, et al. Evaluation and comparison of physical properties of cention N with other restorative materials in artificial saliva: an in vitro study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2022;15(3):350–355.
Temel UB, Hepdeniz KO. Color stability and microhardness of different glass ionomer cements. Med JSDU 2023;30(3):500–507.
Gu YW, Yap AUJ, Cheang P, et al. Zirconia–glass ionomer cement—a potential substitute for Miracle Mix. Scripta Materialia 2005;52(2)113–116.
Bethapudy DR, Bhat C, Lakade L, et al. 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.
Karakaş SN, Küden C. AFM and SEM/EDS characterization of surfaces of fluorine-releasing bulk-fill restorative materials aged in common liquids. J Oral Sci 2022;64(3):202–220.
Chalissery VP, Marwah N, Almuhaiza M, et al. Study of the mechanical properties of the novel zirconia-reinforced glass ionomer cement. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(5):394–398.
Tiwari S, Kenchappa M, Bhayya D, et al. Antibacterial activity and fluoride release of glass-ionomer cement, compomer and zirconia reinforced glass-ionomer cement. J Clin Diagn Res 2016;10(4):ZC90–ZC93.
Inchingolo AM, Malcangi G, Ferrante L, et al. Damage from carbonated soft drinks on enamel: a systematic review. Nutrients 2023;15(7):1785.
Damle SG, Bector A, Saini S. The effect of consumption of carbonated beverages on the oral health of children: a study in real life situation. Integrada 2011;1(1):35–40.
Lokhande P, Shivanna V. Comparative evaluation of micro hardness of type 2 glass ionomer cement (restorative) and zirconia based GIC—an in vitro study. CODS J Dent 2015;7:4–7.
Meurman JH, Rytomaa I, Kari K, et al. Salivary pH and glucose after consuming various beverages, including sugar-containing drinks. Caries Res 1987;21:353–359.
Turssi CP, Hara AT, Serra MC, et al. Effect of storage media upon the surface micromorphology of resin-based restorative materials. J Oral Rehabil 2002;29(9):864–871.
Yap AUJ, Cheang PHN, Chay PL. Mechanical properties of two restorative reinforced glass-ionomer cements. J Oral Rehabil 2002;29:682–668.
el Mallakh BF, Sarkar NK. Fluoride release from glass-ionomer cements in de-ionized water and artificial saliva. Dent Mater 1990;6(2):118–122.
Mazumdar P, Das A, Guha C. Comparative evaluation of hardness of different restorative materials (restorative GIC, cention N, nanohybrid composite resin and silver amalgam) an in vitro study. Int J Adv Res 2018;6(3):826–832.
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.
Cattani-Lorente MA, Godin C, Meyer JM. Mechanical behavior of glass ionomer cements affected by long-term storage in water. Dent Mater 1994;10(1):37–44.
De Moor RJG, Verbeeck RMH. Changes in surface hardness of conventional restorative glass ionomer cements. Biomaterials 1998;19(24):2269–2275.
Shintome LK, Nagayassu MP, Di Nicoló R, et al. Microhardness of glass ionomer cements indicated for the ART technique according to surface protection treatment and storage time. Braz Oral Res 2009;23(4):439–445.
Gray JA. Kinetics of enamel dissolution during formation of incipient caries-like lesions. Arch Oral Biol 1966;11(4):397–422.
Narsimha VV. Effect of cola on surface microhardness and marginal integrity of resin modified glass ionomer and compomer restoration—an in-vitro study. Peoples J Sci Res 2011;4:34–40.
