Comparative evaluation of microleakage of self-cure, dual-cure, and light cure glass ionomer cement in a simulated oral environment - an invitro study Original Research
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background. Pediatric dentistry utilizes various restorative materials wherein the durability and longevity of these restorations hinge on the maintenance of an intact marginal seal to prevent microleakage and its associated complications. Consequently, this study aims to assess the microleakage of self-cure, dual-cure, and light-cure glass ionomer-based cements utilizing a stereo microscope.
Materials and Methods: Sixty therapeutically extracted deciduous molars were taken for the study. The restorative materials used for the studies were self-cure Glass Ionomer cement (Chemfil Rock and GC Fuji IX GP Fast GIC), dual cure Glass Ionomer cement (EquiaForte and Ionolux GIC), and light cure Glass Ionomer cement (GC Fuji II and Ketac N 100 GIC). All samples were stored in commercially available artificial saliva for 20 days to simulate the oral environment. The samples were immersed in Rhodamine B dye for 24 hours, and microleakage was evaluated using a Stereo microscope. Data were tabulated and statistical analysis was done. p < 0.05 is considered significant
Results: In the individual assessment of glass ionomer-based cement, Ketac N100 GIC exhibited the lowest microleakage, whereas Ionolux displayed higher levels of microleakage.
Conclusion: In terms of the curing method, light-cure glass ionomer cement demonstrated the least microleakage compared to both dual-cure and self-cure glass ionomer cement.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
References
Bakhadher W. Modification of glass ionomer restorative material: A review of literature. EC Dental Science. 2019;18:1001-6.
Hickel R, Voss A. A comparison of glass cermet cement and amalgam restorations in primary molars. ASDC J Dent Child. 1990 May-Jun;57(3):184-8.
Cho SY, Cheng AC. A review of glass ionomer restorations in the primary dentition. J Can Dent Assoc. 1999 Oct;65(9):491-5.
Seirawan MY, Doumani M, Seirawan MK, Habib A, Dayoub M. Compressive strength of three different restorative materials (in vitro study). Int J Oral Care Res. 2019 Jan 1; 7(1):4.
Park EY, Kang S. Current aspects and prospects of glass ionomer cements for clinical dentistry. Yeungnam Univ J Med. 2020 Jul;37(3):169-178.
Shah V, Dave B, Bargale S, Poonacha KS, Patel R, Chawda G. 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 Dec;8(12):24566-24573.
AlOtaibi G. Recent advancements in glass ionomer materials with introduction of nanotechnology: A review. Int J Oral Care Res. 2019 Jan 1;7(1):21.
Singla T, Pandit IK, Srivastava N, Gugnani N, Gupta M. An evaluation of microleakage of various glass ionomer based restorative materials in deciduous and permanent teeth: An in vitro study. Saudi Dent J. 2012 Jan;24(1):35-42.
Crim GA. Marginal leakage of visible light-cured glass ionomer restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1993 Jun; 69(6):561-3.
Cehreli SB, Tirali RE, Yalcinkaya Z, Cehreli ZC. Microleakage of newly developed glass carbomer cement in primary teeth. Eur J Dent. 2013 Jan;7(1):15-21.
Corona SA, Borsatto MC, Rocha RA, Palma-Dibb RG. Microleakage on Class V glass ionomer restorations after cavity preparation with aluminum oxide air abrasion. Braz Dent J. 2005;16(1):35-8.
Peker S, Giray FE, Durmus B, Bekiroglu N, Kargül B, Özcan M. Microleakage in class V cavities prepared using conventional method versus Er: YAG laser restored with glass ionomer cement or resin composite. J Adhes Sci Technol. 2017 Mar 4; 31(5):509-19
Gerdolle DA, Mortier E, Droz D. Microleakage and polymerization shrinkage of various polymer restorative materials. J Dent Child (Chic). 2008 May-Aug;75(2):125-33.
Davidović L, Tomić S, Stanojević M, Živković S. Microleakage of glass ionomer cement restorations. Stomatol. Glas. Srb. 2009; 56(2):78-85.
Naghma P, Bilal A, M Amjad B, Anser M. Comparison of microleakage in resin modified glass ionomer cements and poly acids modified composites [compomers]. Pak Oral Dental J. 2009; 29 (2): 379-384.
Bollu IP, Hari A, Thumu J, Velagula LD, Bolla N, Varri S, Kasaraneni S, Nalli SV. Comparative evaluation of microleakage between nano-ionomer, giomer and resin modified glass ionomer cement in class V cavities-CLSM study. JCDR. 2016 May; 10(5):ZC66.
Perdigão J, Dutra-Corrêa M, Saraceni SH, Ciaramicoli MT, Kiyan VH. Randomized clinical trial of two resin-modified glass ionomer materials: 1-year results. Oper Dent. 2012 Nov-Dec;37(6):591-601
Abd El Halim S, Zaki D. Comparative evaluation of microleakage among three different glass ionomer types. Oper Dent. 2011 Jan-Feb;36(1):36-42.
Upadhyay S, Rao A. Nanoionomer: evaluation of microleakage. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2011 Jan-Mar;29(1):20
Toras FM, Hamouda IM. Effect of nano filler on microhardness, diametral tensile strength and compressive strength of nano-filled glass ionomer. Int J Dentistry Oral Sci. 2017 Feb 8;4(2):413-7.