Ion release of the glass ionomer restoration with silver diamine fluoride dentin pretreatment.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the fluoride and silver ion release of glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations, including conventional GIC (CGIC) and resin-modified GIC (RMGIC) restorations, with 38 % silver diamine fluoride (SDF) solution dentin pretreatment. METHODS: Eighty dentin blocks were allocated into 4 groups and restored with SDF+CGIC, CGIC, SDF+RMGIC and RMGIC, respectively. Each block was stored in deionized water at 37 °C for 2 years. Fluoride and silver ion concentration in storage solution was measured using ion-selective electrode and inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometry for up to 2 years. The cross-sectional surfaces of restored dentin blocks were assessed by X-Ray diffraction analysis (XRD), scanning electron microscope (SEM) with energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) after 1 week and 2 years, respectively. RESULTS: The mean ± standard deviation (SD) of accumulative fluoride releasing in SDF+CGIC, CGIC, SDF+RMGIC and RMGIC for 2 years were 0.13±0.005 mg, 0.09±0.006 mg, 0.15±0.008 mg and 0.05±0.003 mg, respectively (Groups SDF+RMGIC > SDF+CGIC > CGIC >RMGIC, p < 0.05). The mean ± SD of accumulative silver releasing in SDF+CGIC, CGIC, SDF+RMGIC and RMGIC for 2 years were 0.03±0.009 mg, 0.00±0.00 mg, 0.01±0.003 mg, and 0.00±0.00 mg, respectively (Groups SDF+CGIC > SDF+RMGIC > CGIC&RMGIC, p < 0.05). Groups SDF+CGIC and SDF+RMGIC showed sustainably higher fluoride and silver releasing compared to Groups CGIC and RMGIC (p < 0.05). XRD analysis indicated the fluorapatite and silver chloride were observed only in Groups SDF+CGIC and SDF+RMGIC, but not in Groups CGIC and RMGIC. SEM images of the cross-sectional view of the dentin blocks showed silver crystals within dentinal tubules 1 week and 2-year in Groups with SDF pretreatment. CONCLUSION: The 38 % SDF dentin pretreatment sustainably increased the fluoride and silver release of GIC and RMGIC restorations for up to 2 years.

Developing a novel glass ionomer cement with enhanced mechanical and chemical properties.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a novel glass ionomer cement (NGIC) with enhanced mechanical and chemical properties and assess its biocompatibility, mechanical strength, and ion release. METHODS: Nanosilver doped bioactive glass (NanoAg BAG) was synthesized by sol-gel method and characterized by scanning electron microscopy with energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy and transmission electron microscopy. The NanoAg BAG, together with poly(vinylphosphonic acid) (PVPA), alumino-fluorosilicate glass and poly-acrylic acid were used to synthesize NGIC. The optimal PVPA concentration for NGIC was determined by PVPA modified GIC's biocompatibility and mechanical properties and used to prepare NGIC specimens. NGIC specimens with NanoAg BAG at 0%, 1%, 2%, and 5% were allocated into Groups NGIC0, NGIC1, NGIC2, and NGIC5, respectively. The biocompatibility, surface morphology, elemental composition, surface topography, chemical properties, compressive strength, diametral tensile strength, and ion release of the NGIC were assessed. A conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) was used as a control. RESULTS: A granular BAG with nano silver particles attached on its surface were found, indicating the successful synthesis of NanoAg BAG. PVPA at 10% presented the best effect in enhancing the biocompatibility and mechanical properties of PVPA modified GIC and was used to prepare NGIC specimens. NGIC1 showed similar biocompatibility, surface morphology and topography to GIC. Chemical properties results showed that NGICs showed the same adsorption peaks to GIC. The compressive strength (mean±SD in MPa) was 168.1 ± 29.7, 205.5 ± 29.5, 221.8 ± 46.8, 216.6 ± 59.3 and 167.7 ± 36.4, and the diametral tensile strength (mean±SD in MPa) was 14.1 ± 1.7, 18.3 ± 4.9, 21.2 ± 2.2, 17.2 ± 3.8 and 13.3 ± 3.3 for GIC, NGIC0, NGIC1, NGIC2 and NGIC5 respectively. NIGC0, NGIC1 and NGIC2 showed higher compressive and diametral tensile strength than GIC (p < 0.01). NGIC2 and NGIC5 showed higher release of fluoride, calcium, phosphate and silver ion than GIC and NGIC0 (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: A biocompatible NGIC with enhanced mechanical properties were developed. It presented enhanced fluoride, calcium, phosphate and silver ion release compared to conventional GIC.

The preventive effect of glass ionomer cement restorations on secondary caries formation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective is to compare the preventive effect on secondary caries of glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations with amalgam or resin-composite restorations. METHODS: Two independent researchers conducted a systematic search of English publications in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane and Scopus. They selected randomized clinical trials comparing secondary caries incidences around GIC restorations (conventional GIC or resin-modified GIC) with amalgam or resin-composite restorations. Meta-analysis of the secondary-caries incidences with risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) as the effect measure was performed. RESULTS: This review included 64 studies. These studies included 8310 GIC restorations and 5857 amalgam or resin-composite restorations with a follow-up period from 1 to 10 years. Twenty-one studies with 4807 restorations on primary teeth and thirty-eight studies with 4885 restorations on permanent teeth were eligible for meta-analysis. The GIC restorations had a lower secondary caries incidence compared with amalgam restorations in both primary dentition [RR= 0.55, 95% CI:0.41-0.72] and permanent dentition [RR= 0.20, 95% CI:0.11-0.38]. GIC restorations showed similar secondary caries incidence compared with resin-composite restorations in primary dentition [RR= 0.92, 95% CI:0.77-1.10] and permanent dentition [RR= 0.77, 95% CI:0.39-1.51]. Conventional GIC restorations showed similar secondary caries incidence compared with resin-modified GIC-restored teeth in both primary dentition [RR= 1.12, 95% CI:0.67-1.87] and permanent dentition [RR= 1.63, 95% CI:0.34-7.84]. CONCLUSIONS: GIC restorations showed a superior preventive effect against secondary caries compared to amalgam restorations, and a similar preventive effect against secondary caries compared to resin-composite restorations in both primary and permanent teeth. [PROSPERO Registration ID: CRD42022380959].

A novel glass ionomer cement with silver zeolite for restorative dentistry.

OBJECTIVE: To develop an antimicrobial silver zeolite glass ionomer cement (SZ-GIC) and determine its biocompatibility, physical, adhesive and antibacterial properties. METHODS: Silver nitrate and sodium zeolite were used to synthesize silver zeolite (SZ). SZ-GICs were prepared by incorporating SZ into GIC at 5% (SZ-GIC5), 2% (SZ-GIC2), or 1% (SZ-GIC1) by weight, respectively. The SZ-GICs were characterized by evaluating surface morphology, topography and elemental composition. SZ-GICs' biocompatibility was assessed by evaluating cell cytotoxicity. Their physical properties were determined by testing setting time, compressive strength, flexural strength, water sorption and solubility. Their adhesive property was assessed by evaluating micro-tensile bond strength. Their antibacterial properties were assessed by evaluating biofilm growth kinetic, metabolic activity, viability and morphology. GIC was used as a control. RESULTS: SZ was a three-dimensional crystalline mineral. SZ-GICs (including SZ-GIC 5, 2 and 1) showed similar surface morphology and topography to GIC. SZ-GIC1 and GIC had no difference in cell cytotoxicity (p>0.05). SZ-GICs and GIC showed no difference in setting time (p>0.05). SZ-GICs had higher compressive and flexural strength than GIC (p<0.05). SZ-GIC2 and SZ-GIC1 showed lower water sorption and solubility than GIC (p<0.05). SZ-GICs had higher micro-tensile bond strength than GIC (p<0.05). Biofilms on SZ-GICs' surfaces showed lower colony-forming units, decreased metabolic activities, higher percentages of dead cells and more ruptured bacterial cells compared with those on GIC. CONCLUSION: SZ-GIC with silver zeolite at 1% by weight are as biocompatible as conventional GIC. The SZ-GICs have enhanced physical, adhesive and antibacterial properties than GIC. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: A silver zeolite glass ionomer cement was developed. The SZ-GICs have great potential for caries prevention and management.

The preventive effect of glass ionomer restorations on new caries formation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations on preventing new caries in primary or permanent dentitions compared with other types of restorations. DATA: Randomized controlled clinical trials evaluating caries experience increment or caries incidence in patients with GIC restorations, including conventional GIC (CGIC) and resin-modified GIC (RMGIC) restorations, were included. SOURCES: A systematic search of publications in English was conducted in PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus databases. STUDY SELECTION/RESULTS: This review included 10 studies reporting caries preventive effect of GIC restorations and selected 5 studies for meta-analysis. Patients with GIC restorations showed lower caries incidence compared with other restorations in primary and permanent dentition [RR=0.67, 95% CI:0.55-0.82, p < 0.0001]. Patients with CGIC restorations showed lower caries incidence compared with amalgam restorations [RR=0.57, 95% CI:0.43-0.76, p = 0.0001] and RMGIC restorations [RR=0.70, 95% CI:0.56-0.87, p = 0.002], but no statistical difference with composite resin restorations [RR=0.73, 95% CI:0.51-1.04, p = 0.08] in primary dentition. Patients with RMGIC restorations showed no statistical differences of caries incidence compared with composite resin restorations in primary and permanent dentition [RR=0.83, 95% CI:0.56-1.22, p = 0.33]. CONCLUSIONS: GIC restorations presented a better preventive effect on new caries than other restorations did in primary and permanent dentitions. CGIC restorations presented a better caries preventive effect on new caries than RMGIC and amalgam restorations in primary dentitions did. RMGIC restorations showed similar preventing effect on new caries with composite resin restorations in primary and permanent dentitions. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This review affirmed the potential of GIC in preventing new caries development in the dentition.