The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 22 , ISSUE 1 ( January, 2021 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Influence of Nanocoats on the Physicomechanical Properties and Microleakage of Bulk-fill and Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cements: An In Vitro Study

Shaymaa I Habib, Rania E Bayoumi

Keywords : Bulk-fill, EQUIA Forte, Glass ionomer, In vitro, Microleakage, Nanocoats, Physicomechanical, RM-GIC, Universal adhesive

Citation Information : Habib SI, Bayoumi RE. Influence of Nanocoats on the Physicomechanical Properties and Microleakage of Bulk-fill and Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cements: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2021; 22 (1):62-68.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3020

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 19-04-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: To analyze the impact of two nanocoating materials, EQUIA Forte nanocoat and universal adhesive, on flexural strength, color changes, surface roughness, and microleakage of bulk-fill and resin-modified glass ionomer cements (RM-GICs). Materials and methods: A total of 45 specimens were prepared for each group, bulk-fill (EQUIA Forte Fil) and RM-GI (Fuji II LC) cements, according to manufacturer's instructions for flexural strength, color change, and surface roughness tests. Each group was equally subdivided into three subgroups according to coating materials used; either without a coat (negative control) or covered with EQUIA Forte coat or universal adhesive. For the flexural strength test, 15 bar-shaped specimens were prepared using a rectangular-split Teflon mold (25 × 2 × 2 mm), then the test was conducted using a universal testing machine. Thirty disk-shaped specimens were prepared for color change and surface roughness tests using cylindrical-split Teflon mold (10 mm diameter and 2 mm height). The color change was measured using a spectrophotometer after immersion in tea infusion for seven days at room temperature. Surface roughness was examined using a profilometer after exposure to 2400 brushing cycles. Moreover, a microleakage test was conducted in 30 teeth restored with the same restorative protocols and evaluated using a stereomicroscope. Finally, the data were statistically analyzed. Results: EQUIA Forte nanocoat subgroups exhibited the highest flexural strength in both tested GICs compared to other subgroups (91.07 ± 7.12 MPa for RM-GIC and 51.61 ± 4.42 MPa for bulk-fill GIC). For the color change, the lowest ΔE values for bulk-fill and RM-GICs were recorded in EQUIA Forte nanocoat subgroups (2.37 ± 0.25 and 2.97 ± 0.39, respectively) with no significant difference between both groups. The surface roughness of both GICs was significantly decreased in the coated subgroups either with EQUIA Forte coat or universal adhesive, with no significant difference between both coating agents. Also, microleakage was significantly decreased in the coated subgroups with no significant difference between the coating materials. Conclusion: Nanocoats, especially the EQUIA Forte nanocoat, positively impact the physicomechanical properties and adaptation of bulk-fill GICs and RM-GICs. Clinical significance: The application of nanocoats on GI restorations is highly recommended.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Raggio DP, Tedesco TK, Calvo AF, et al. Do glass ionomer cements prevent caries lesions in margins of restorations in primary teeth. A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Dent Assoc 2016;147:177–185. DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2015.09.016.
  2. Chen L, Shen H, Suh BI. Bioactive dental restorative materials: A review. Am J Dent 2013;26:219–227. PMID: 24693633.
  3. Baig MS, Fleming GJ. Conventional glass-ionomer materials: a review of the developments in glass powder, polyacid liquid and the strategies of rein for cement. J Dent 2015;43:897–912. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.04.004.
  4. Burke FJ. Dental materials – what goes where? The current status of glass ionomer as a material for load bearing restorations in posterior teeth. Dent Update 2013;40:840–844. DOI: 10.12968/denu.2013.40.10.840.
  5. Schwendicke F, Kniess J, Paris S, et al. Margin integrity and secondary caries of lined or non-lined composite and glass hybrid restorations after selective excavation in vitro. Oper Dent 2016;42(2):155–164. DOI: 10.2341/16-095-L.
  6. 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):1031–1037. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2011. 07.004.
  7. Klinke T, Daboul A, Turek A, et al. Clinical performance during 48 months of two current glass ionomer restorative systems with coatings: a randomized clinical trial in the field. Trials 2016;17(1):239. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-016-1339-8.
  8. Bagheri R, Palamara J, Mese A, et al. Effect of a self-adhesive coating on the load-bearing capacity of tooth-colored restorative materials. Aust Dent J 2017;62(1):71–78. DOI: 10.1111/adj.12432.
  9. Balkaya H, Arslan S, Pala K. A randomized, prospective clinical study evaluating effectiveness of a Bulk-fill composite resin, a conventional composite resin and a reinforced glass ionomer in Class II cavities: one-year results. J Appl Oral Sci 2019;27:e20180678. DOI: 10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0678.
  10. Beresescu G, Brezeanu L. Effect of artificial saliva on the surface roughness of glass ionomer cements. Inter Eng 2011;8:134–136. Corpus ID: 1580556, ISSN: 1841-9267.
  11. 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.
  12. Ozkanoglu S, Akin EG. Evaluation of the effect of various beverages on the color stability and microhardness of restorative materials. Niger J Clin Pract 2020;23(3):322–328. DOI: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_306_19.
  13. Lopes CMC, Galvan J, Chibinski ACR, et al. Fluoride release and surface roughness of a new glass ionomer cement: glass carbomer. Rev Odontol UNESP 2018;47:1–6. DOI: 10.1590/1807-2577.06717.
  14. Tamhankar G, Bendgude V, Pawar M, et al. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of type IX glass ionomer cement and nano-ionomer cement restoration, in cavities prepared by erbium: yttrium, aluminum, garnet laser and conventional bur method: in vitro study. Int J Pedod Rehabil 2019;4(2):71–75. DOI: 10.4103/ijpr.ijpr_20_18.
  15. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 9917-2:2010: Dentistry. Water-based cements. Geneva: ISO; 2010.
  16. Mostafa DH, Abdel-Hamid DM, Esawi AK. The effect of the filler size, storage media and brushing on the surface durability of resin modified glass ionomer. Egy Dent J 2010;56:1–15. ISSN: 0070-9484.
  17. Bezgin T, Özer L, Tulga Öz F, et al. Effect of tooth brushing on color changes of esthetic restorative materials. J Esthet Restor Dent 2015;27(1):S65–S73. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12136.
  18. Bijella MF, Bijella MF, da Silva SM. In vitro quantitative evaluation of marginal microleakage in class II restorations confected with a glass ionomer cement and two composite resins. Pesqui Odontol Bras 2001;15(4):277–282. DOI: 10.1590/s1517-74912001000400002.
  19. Oilo G. Characterization of glass ionomer filling materials. Dent Mater 1988;4:129–133. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(88)80005-8.
  20. Tiwari S, Nandlal B. Effect of nano-filled surface coating agent on fluoride release from conventional glass ionomer cement: an in vitro trial. J Indian Soc Pedo Prev Dent 2013;31:91–95. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.115703.
  21. Mitra S, Wu D, Holmes B. An application of nanotechnology in advanced dental materials. J Am Dent Assoc 2003;134:1382–1390. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2003.0054.
  22. Lu H, Lee Y, Oguri M, et al. Properties of a dental resin composite with spherical inorganic filler. Oper Dent 2006;31:734–740. DOI: 10.2341/05-154.
  23. Thongbai-on N, Banomyong D. Flexural strengths and porosities of coated or uncoated, high powder-liquid and resin-modified glass ionomer cements. J Dent Sci 2020;15:433–436. DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2020.02.004.
  24. Mensudar R, Sukumaran VG. To evaluate the effect of surface coating on three different types glass ionomer restorations. Biomed Pharmacol J 2015;8(Spl Edn):445–449. DOI: 10.13005/bpj/720.
  25. Moshaverinia M, Navas A, Jahedmanesh N, et al. Comparative evaluation of the physical properties of a reinforced glass ionomer dental restorative material. J Prosthet Dent 2019;122(2):154–159. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.03.012.
  26. Mundim FM, Garcia LFR, Pires-de-Souza FCP. Effect of staining solutions and repolishing on color stability of direct composites. J Appl Oral Sci 2010;18(3):249–254. DOI: 10.1590/s1678-77572010000300009.
  27. Chan KC, Fuller JL, Hormati AA. The ability of foods to stain two composite resins. J Prosthet Dent 1980;43:542–545. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(80)90328-5.
  28. Kurinji Amalavathy R, Sahoo HS, Shivanna S, et al. Staining effect of various beverages on surface nanohardness of a resin coated and a non-coated fluoride releasing tooth-coloured restorative material. Heliyon 2020;6(6):e04345. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04345.
  29. 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;15:71–78. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(99)00016-0.
  30. Jones CS, Billington RW, Pearson GJ. The in vivo perception of roughness of restorations. Br Dent J 2004;196:42–45. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4810881.
  31. Bagheri R, Burrow MF, Tyas MJ. Surface characteristics of aesthetic restorative materials-an SEM study. J Oral Rehabil 2007;34:68–76. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01608.x.
  32. Soderholm KJ, Richards ND. Wear resistance of composite: a solved problem? Gen Dent 1998;46(3):256–263. PMID: 9693539.
  33. AlJamhan AS, Andrea G, Zandona F, et al. In-vitro wear and hardness of new conventional glass ionomer cement coated with nano-filled resin [master thesis]. Indiana University School of Dentistry; 2011. p. 78.
  34. Bagis B, Tüzüner T, Turgut S, et al. Effects of protective resin coating on the surface roughness and color stability of resin-based restorative materials. Sci World J 2014;2014:832947. DOI: 10.1155/2014/832947.
  35. Pontes DG, Guedes-Neto MV, Cabral MF, et al. Microleakage evaluation of class V restorations with conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cements. Oral Health Dent Manage 2014;13:642–646. PMID: 25284528.
  36. Arthilakshmi, Vishnurekha C, Annamalai S, et al. Effect of protective coating on microleakage of conventional glass ionomer cement and resin-modified glass ionomer cement in primary molars: an in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res 2018;29:744–748. DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_490_17.
  37. Jevnikar P, Sersa I, Sepe A, et al. Effect of surface coating on water migration into resin-modified glass ionomer cements: a magnetic resonance micro-imaging study. Magn Reson Med 2000;44:686–691. DOI: 10.1002/1522-2594(200011)44:5<686::AID-MRM5>3.0.CO;2-5.
  38. Inoue S, Van Meerbeek B, Abe Y, et al. Effect of remaining dentin thickness and the use conditioner on micro-tensile bond strength of a glass-ionomer adhesive. Dent Mater 2001;17(5):445–455. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(01)00003-3.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.