Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Fiber-reinforced Glass Ionomer Cement and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement Restorations Immersed in Three Different Beverages: In Vitro Study
Miranda Ann George, Shweta Abhay Chandak, Sneha Himmatrao Khekade, Niharika Bhushansingh Gahlod, Milind Bhagwan Wasnik, V Shibi Mathew
Citation Information :
George MA, Chandak SA, Khekade SH, Gahlod NB, Wasnik MB, Mathew VS. Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Fiber-reinforced Glass Ionomer Cement and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement Restorations Immersed in Three Different Beverages: In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024; 25 (4):346-353.
Aim: The aim of the study was to compare and evaluate the microleakage of fiber-reinforced glass ionomer cement (GIC) and conventional glass ionomer cement restorations immersed in three different beverages.
Materials and methods: A total of 96 human exfoliating deciduous molars were selected which were cleaned and disinfected. Standardized Class V cavity preparations were done and buccal surface were restored with experimental fiber-reinforced glass ionomer cement (Exp-FRGIC), lingual surface were restored with Type II conventional GIC. They were divided into four groups according to the test beverage. The samples were subjected to various immersion regimes and evaluated for microleakage under stereomicroscope.
Results: Intragroup comparison for (Exp-FRGIC) showed significant microleakage when immersed in fresh fruit juice at high immersion whereas intragroup comparison in conventional GIC, showed highest microleakage with soft drink. Intergroup comparison of (Exp-FRGIC) in high immersion regime, showed more microleakage with specimen immersed in soft drink followed by fresh fruit juice.
Conclusion: It can thus be concluded that the three beverages used in the study affected the microleakage of both restorative materials significantly.
Clinical significance: Increasing usage of fruit juices in the pediatric diet has a definite impact on the progression of caries and it directly or indirectly affects the quality of restorations placed in the oral cavity.
Brannstrom M, Nordenvall KJ, Malmgren O. The effect of various pretreatment methods of the enamel in bonding procedures. Am J Orthod 1978;74(5):522–530. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(78)90027-1.
Griffin SG, Hill RG. Influence of glass composition on the properties of glass polyalkenoate cements. Part IV: Influence of fluorine content. Biomaterials 2000;21(7):693–698. DOI: 10.1016/s0142-9612(99) 00216-1.
Lohbauer U, Walker J, Nikolaenko S, et al. Reactive fibre reinforced glass ionomer cements. Biomaterials 2003;24(17):2901–2907. DOI: 10.1016/s0142-9612(03)00130-3.
Croll TP, Nicholson JW. Glass ionomer cements in pediatric dentistry: Review of the literature. Pediatr Dent 2002;24(5):423–429. PMID: 12412956.
Harnack L, Stang J, Story M. Soft drink consumption among US children and adolescents: Nutritional consequences. J Am Diet Assooc 1999;99(4):436–441. DOI: 10.1016/S0002-8223(99)00106-6.
Walia R, Jasuja P, Verma KG, et al. A comparative evaluation of microleakage and compressive strength of Ketac Molar, Giomer, Zirconomer, and Ceram-x: An in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2016;34(3):280–284. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.186746.
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. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1071.
Aydın B, Pamir T, Baltaci A, et al. Effect of storage solutions on microhardness of crown enamel and dentin. Eur J Dent 2015;9(2):262–266. DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.156848.
Maupome G, de Bonilla JD, Torres-Villaseñor G, et al. In vitro quantitative assessment of enamel microhardness after exposure to eroding immersion in a cola drink. Caries Res 1998;32(2):148–153. DOI: 10.1159/000016445.
Prabhakar AR, Madan M, Raju S. The marginal seal of a flowable composite, an injectable resin modified glass ionomer and a compomer in primary molars – An in vitro study. J Ind Soc Pedo Prev Dent 2003;21(2):45–48. PMID: 14700335.
Rajavardhan K, Sankar AJS, Shaik TA, et al. A novel technique in restoring fractured anterior teeth. J Clin Diagnostic Res 2014;8(2):244–245. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2014/7464.4071.
Baig MS, Fleming GJP. Conventional glass-ionomer materials: A review of the developments in glass powder, polyacid liquid and the strategies of reinforcement. J Dent 2015;43(8):897–912. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.04.004.
Garoushi SK, Vallittu PK, Lassila LJ. Reinforcing effect of discontinuous microglass fibers on resin-modified glass ionomer cement. Dent Mater J 2018;37(3):484–492. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2017-234.
Katge F, Shitoot A, Pammi T, et al. Evaluation of microleakage of nanoionomer and nanocomposite restorations, immersed in fruit drink, fresh fruit juice and soft drink – An in vitro study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016;40(2):129–135. DOI: 10.17796/1053-4628-40.2.129.
Lussi A, Jaeggi T, Zero D. The role of diet in the aetiology of dental erosion. Caries Res 2004;38(1):34–44. DOI: 10.1159/000074360.
Narsimha VV. Effect of cola on surface microhardness and marginal integrity of Resin-modified Glass Ionomer and Compomer restoration: An in vitro study. J Sci Res 2011;4(2):34–40. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.8273054.
Wongkhantee S, Patanapiradej V, Maneenut C, et al. Effect of acidic food and drinks on surface hardness of enamel, dentine, and tooth-coloured filling materials. J Dent 2006;34(3):214–220. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2005.06.003.
Sabdi S, Bakar WZW, Husein A. Assessment of microleakage of few restorative materials after erosion by acidic solution. Arch Orofac Sci 2011;6(2):66–72. Available from: https://web.archive.org/web/20180 422105702id_/http://www.dental.usm.my/aos/docs/Vol_6/Isu_2/6672.201211.2011aos30.pdf.
