Effects of surface coating on the flexural strength of fluoridereleasing restorative materials after water aging for one year

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the effects of surface coating and one-year water storage on the flexural strength of fluoride-releasing restorative materials. Materials and Methods: Forty specimens were prepared from each material; GCP Glass Fill (GCP), Amalgomer CR (AHL), Zirconomer (Shofu), Fuji IX GP Capsule (GC), Beautifil II (Shofu), Estelite Σ Quick (Tokuyama) and reliaFIL LC (AHL). The specimens were randomly divided into two groups; surface coated with G-Coat Plus (GC) and uncoated. Each group was subdivided into two groups stored in distilled water at 37◦C for 24 h and 1 year before testing (n=10). The flexural strength was evaluated using three-point bending test according to the ISO 4049:2009 standard using a universal testing machine. After flexural strength test, a cross-section of the coated specimens was evaluated with scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Results: A significant increase was observed on the flexural strength of Amalgomer CR, Zirconomer and Fuji IX GP after 24 h when G-Coat Plus was applied (p<0.05). This significant increase was observed on the flexural strength of only Amalgomer CR and Zirconomer after 1 year (p<0.05). The highest flexural strength was obtained with Beautifil II, Estelite Σ Quick and reliaFIL LC after 24 h and 1 year (p<0.05). After 1 year, there was decrease on the flexural strength of the other materials except Beautifil II, Estelite Σ Quick and reliaFIL LC. Conclusion: The resin coating improved the flexural strength of some glass ionomer-based materials but the water aging decreased the same physical properties.

Keywords

• Flexural strength
• Glass ionomer cement
• Scanning electron microscopy
• Surface coating
• Water aging

References

1. 1. Wilson AD, Kent BE. A new translucent cement for dentistry. The glass ionomer cement. Br Dent J. 1972;132(4):133-5.
2. 2. Wiegand A, Buchalla W, Attin T. Review on fluoride-releasing restorative materials--fluoride release and uptake characteristics, antibacterial activity and influence on caries formation. Dent Mater. 2007;23(3):343-62.
3. 3. Garoushi S, Vallittu PK, Lassila L. Characterization of fluoride releasing restorative dental materials. Dent Mater J. 2018;37(2):293-300.
4. 4. Nicholson JW. Maturation processes in glass-ionomer dental cements. Acta Biomater Odontol Scand. 2018;4(1):63-71.
5. 5. Ilie N. Maturation of restorative glass ionomers with simplified application procedure. J Dent. 2018;798:46-52.
6. 6. Xie D, Brantley WA, Culbertson BM, Wang G. Mechanical properties and microstructures of glass-ionomer cements. Dent Mater. 2000;16(2):129-38.
7. 7. Bagheri R, Azar MR, Burrow MF, Tyas MJ. The effect of aging on the fracture toughness of aesthetic restorative materials. Am J Dent. 2010;23(3):142-6.
8. 8. Zhou X, Wang S, Peng X, Hu Y, Ren B, Li M, et al. Effects of water and microbial-based aging on the performance of three dental restorative materials. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2018;80:42-50.

9. 9. Feng J, Cheng L, Zhou X, Xu HHK, Weir MD, Li Q, et al. Effects of water aging on the mechanical and anti-biofilm properties of glass-ionomer cement containing dimethylaminododecyl methacrylate. Dent Mater. 2019;35(3):434-443.
10. 10. Ching HS, Luddin N, Kannan TP, Ab Rahman I, Abdul Ghani NRN. Modification of glass ionomer cements on their physical-mechanical and antimicrobial properties. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2018;30(6):557-571.
11. 11. Diem VT, Tyas MJ, Ngo HC, Phuong LH, Khanh ND. The effect of a nano-filled resin coating on the 3-year clinical performance of a conventional high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(3):753-9.
12. 12. Lohbauer U, Krämer N, Siedschlag G, Schubert EW, Lauerer B, Müller FA, et al. Strength and wear resistance of a dental glass-ionomer cement with a novel nanofilled resin coating. Am J Dent. 2011;24(2):124-8.
13. 13. Bonifácio CC, Werner A, Kleverlaan CJ. Coating glass-ionomer cements with a nanofilled resin. Acta Odontol Scand. 2012;70(6):471-7.
14. 14. Bagheri R, Palamara J, Mese A, Manton DJ. Effect of a self-adhesive coating on the load-bearing capacity of tooth-coloured restorative materials. Aust Dent J. 2017;62(1):71-78.
15. 15. Zoergiebel J, Ilie N. Evaluation of a conventional glass ionomer cement with new zinc formulation: effect of coating, aging and storage agents. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17(2):619-26.
16. 16. Bagheri R, Taha NA, Azar MR, Burrow MF. Effect of G-Coat Plus on the mechanical properties of glass-ionomer cements. Aust Dent J. 2013;58(4):448-53.
17. 17. Pacifici E, Bossù M, Giovannetti A, La Torre G, Guerra F, Polimeni A. Surface roughness of glass ionomer cements indicated for uncooperative patients according to surface protection treatment. Ann Stomatol (Roma). 2014;4(3-4):250-8.
18. 18. Pameijer CH, Garcia-Godoy F, Morrow BR, Jefferies SR. Flexural strength and flexural fatigue properties of resin-modified glass ionomers. J Clin Dent. 2015;26(1):23-7.
19. 19. Faridi MA, Khabeer A, Haroon S. Flexural Strength of Glass Carbomer Cement and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement Stored in Different Storage Media over Time. Med Princ Pract. 2018;27(4):372-377.
20. 20. Wang L, D'Alpino PH, Lopes LG, Pereira JC. Mechanical properties of dental restorative materials: relative contribution of laboratory tests. J Appl Oral Sci. 2003;11(3):162-7.
21. 21. Algera TJ, Kleverlaan CJ, Prahl-Andersen B, Feilzer AJ. The influence of environmental conditions on the material properties of setting glass-ionomer cements. Dent Mater. 2006;22(9):852-6.
22. 22. Menne-Happ U, Ilie N. Effect of gloss and heat on the mechanical behaviour of a glass carbomer cement. J Dent. 2013;41(3):223-30.
23. 23. Chen S, Öhman C, Jefferies SR, Gray H, Xia W, Engqvist H. Compressive fatigue limit of four types of dental restorative materials. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2016;61:283-289.
24. 24. Gajewski VE, Pfeifer CS, Fróes-Salgado NR, Boaro LC, Braga RR. Monomers used in resin composites: degree of conversion, mechanical properties and water sorption/solubility. Braz Dent J. 2012;23(5):508-14.
25. 25. Walia R, Jasuja P, Verma KG, Juneja S, Mathur A, Ahuja L. 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):280-4.
26. 26. Bapna MS, Gadia CM, Drummond JL. Effects of aging and cyclic loading on the mechanical properties of glass ionomer cements. Eur J Oral Sci. 2002;110(4):330-4.
27. 27. Musanje L, Shu M, Darvell BW. Water sorption and mechanical behaviour of cosmetic direct restorative materials in artificial saliva. Dent Mater. 2001 Sep;17(5):394-401.
28. 28. Cefaly DF, Franco EB, Mondelli RF, Francisconi PA, Navarro MF. Diametral tensile strength and water sorption of glass-ionomer cements used in Atraumatic Restorative Treatment. J Appl Oral Sci. 2003;11(2):96-101.
29. 29. Ricci WA, Alfano P, Pamato S, Cruz CADS, Pereira JR. Mechanical Degradation of Different Classes of Composite Resins Aged in Water, Air, and Oil. Biomed Res Int. 2019;2019:7410759.
30. 30. Roberts HW, Berzins DW, Charlton DG. Hardness of three resin-modified glass-ionomer restorative materials as a function of depth and time. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2009;21(4):262-72.
31. 31. Hankins AD, Hatch RH, Benson JH, Blen BJ, Tantbirojn D, Versluis A. The effect of a nanofilled resin-based coating on water absorption by teeth restored with glass ionomer. J Am Dent Assoc. 2014;145(4):363-70.
32. 32. Kim KL, Namgung C, Cho BH. The effect of clinical performance on the survival estimates of direct restorations. Restor Dent Endod. 2013;38(1):11-20.