Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2013; 07(01): 015-021
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1698990
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Microleakage of newly developed glass carbomer cement in primary teeth

Sevi Burcak Cehreli
1   Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Baskent University
,
Tirali R Ebru
1   Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Baskent University
,
Zeynep Yalcinkaya
1   Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Baskent University
,
Zafer C Cehreli
1   Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Baskent University
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
30 September 2019 (online)

  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objective: Glass carbomer cement represents a new generation of dental material, which mineralizes gradually into fluorapatite. The aim of this study was to evaluate the microleakage and marginal integrity of newly developed glass carbomer cement with and without protective surface coating (SC) in primary molars.

Methods: Standardized cavities were prepared on extracted human primary molars, and the teeth were randomly assigned into the following groups (n = 10/each): (1) conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) without SC; (2) GIC with SC; (3) glass carbomer cement without SC; (4) glass carbomer cement with SC; and (5) compomer without SC. Following thermocycling (5 ± 2°C–55 ± 2°C, dwell time 15 s, 2000×), the specimens were immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsin solution, sectioned, and digitally photographed. Microleakage was evaluated quantitatively by using open-source image analysis toolkit (ImageJ), and the data were analyzed statistically by using Kruskal-Wallis and Conover’s Multiple Comparison tests (P=.05).

Results: The greatest amount of dye leakage was observed in the uncoated glass carbomer specimens, followed by the uncoated glass ionomer group (P.05). There was no significant difference between the microleakage values of coated glass ionomer, coated glass carbomer, and the compomer (P.05). The following statistical ranking was observed among microleakage of the test materials: uncoated glass carbomer > uncoated glass ionomer > coated glass ionomer ≈ coated glass carbomer ≈ compomer. Uncoated glass carbomer exhibited severe internal ice crack-like lines.

Conclusion: The use of the new glass carbomer cement without SC results in severe microleakage and catastrophic internal cracks. (Eur J Dent 2013;7:15-21)

Key words

Glass ionomer cement - glass carbomer - image analysis - microleakage - primary teeth - sealant
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Smith DC. Polyacrylic acid-based cements-adhesion to enamel and dentin. Oper Dent 1992;Suppl 5:177-183.
  • 2 Erickson RL, Glasspoole EA. Bonding to tooth structure: a comparison of glass-ionomer and composite-resin systems. J Esthet Dent 1994;6:227-244.
  • 3 Nikolaos K, Vassiliki T, Christine T, Eirini T. The early fluoride release pattern of an aged glass ionomer treated with fluoride. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2007;15:135-141.
  • 4 Davidovich E, Weiss E, Fuks AB, Beyth N. Surface antibacterial properties of glass ionomer cements used in atraumatic restorative treatment. J Am Dent Assoc 2007;138:1347-1352.
  • 5 Modena KC, Casas-Apayco LC, Atta MT, Costa CA, Hebling J, Sipert CR, Navarro MF, Santos CF. Cytotoxicity and biocompatibility of direct and indirect pulp capping materials. J Appl Oral Sci 2009;17:544-554.
  • 6 Hallgren A, Oliveby A, Twetman S. Caries associated microflora in plaque from orthodontic appliances retained with glass-ionomer cement. Scand J Dent Res 1992;100:140-143.
  • 7 Valk JW, Davidson CL. The relevance of controlled fluoride release with bonded orthodontic appliances. J Dent 1987;15:257-260.
  • 8 Bynum AM, Donly KJ. Enamel de/remineralization on teeth adjacent to fluoride releasing materials without dentifrice exposure. ASDC J Dent Child 1999;66:89-92.
  • 9 Rutar J, McAllan L, Tyas MJ. Three-year clinical performance of glass ionomer cement in primary molars. Int J Paediatr Dent 2002;12:146-147.
  • 10 Tyas MJ, Burrow MF. Adhesive restorative materials: a review. Aust Dent J 2004;49:112-121.
  • 11 Qvist V, Poulsen A, Teglers PT, Mjör IA. The longevity of different restorations in primary teeth. Int J Paediatr Den 2010;20:1-7.
  • 12 Hickel R, Kaaden C, Paschos E, Buerkle V, García-Godoy F, Manhart J. Longevity of occlusally-stressed restorations in posterior primary teeth. Am J Dent 2005;18:198-211.
  • 13 Hübel S, Mejàre I. Conventional versus resin-modified glass-ionomer cement for Class II restorations in primary molars. A 3-year clinical study. Int J Paediatr Dent 2003;13:2-8.
  • 14 Qvist V, Manscher E, Teglers PT. Resin-modified and conventional glass ionomer restorations in primary teeth: 8-year results. J Dent 2004; 2:285-294.
  • 15 Qvist V, Laurberg L, Poulsen A, Teglers PT. Class II restorations in primary teeth: 7-year study on three resinmodified glass ionomer cements and a compomer. Euro J Oral Sci 2004;112:188-196.
  • 16 Faccin ES, Ferreira SH, Kramer PF, Ardenghi TM, Feldens CA. Clinical performance of ART restorations in primary teeth: a survival analysis. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2009;33:295- 298.
  • 17 Van Duinen RN, Davidson CL, De Gee AJ, Feilzer AJ. In situ transformation of glass-ionomer into an enamel-like material. Am J Dent 2004;17:223-227.
  • 18 Raskin A, Tassery H, D’hoore W, Gonthier S, Vreven J, Degrange M, Dejaou J. Influence of the number of specimens on reliability of in vitro microleakage evaluations. Am J Dent 2003;6:207-210.
  • 19 Cehreli ZC, Gungor HC. Quantitative microleakage evaluation of fissure sealants applied with or without a bonding agent: results after four-year water storage in vitro. J Adhes Dent 2008;10:379-384.
  • 20 Mount GJ, Makinson OF. Glass-ionomer restorative cements: clinical implications of the setting reaction. Oper Dent 1982;7:134-141.
  • 21 Asmussen E. Opacity of glass-ionomer cements. Acta Odontol Scand 1983;41:155-7.
  • 22 Earl MS, Hume WR, Mount GJ. Effect of varnishes and other surface treatments on water movement across the glass-ionomer cement surface. Aust Dent J 1985;30:298- 301.
  • 23 Rodrigues Garcia RC, De Goes MF, Del Bel Cury AA. Influence of protecting agents on the solubility of glass ionomers. Am J Dent 1995;8:294-296.
  • 24 Hotta M, Hirukawa H, Yamamoto K. Effect of coating materials on restorative glass-ionomer cement surface. Oper Dent 1992;17:57-61.
  • 25 Watson T, Banerjee A. Effectiveness of glass-ionomer surface protection treatments: a scanning optical microscope study. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 1993;2:85-90.
  • 26 Using glass ionomers. Council on Dental Materials, Instruments, and Equipment. J Am Dent Assoc 1990;121:181-188.
  • 27 Guelmann M, Bonnin S, Primosch RE, Söderholm KJ. Microleakage and wall adaptation of conservative restorations. Am J Dent 2002;15:407-411.
  • 28 Chen X, Cuijpers V, Fan M, Frencken JE. Marginal leakage of two newer glass-ionomer-based sealant materials assessed using micro-CT. J Dent 2010;38:731-735.