Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:53:10.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Incorporation of Nanoparticles into Conventional Glass-Ionomer Dental Restorative Cements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2015

Elizabeta Gjorgievska ,
Gustaaf Van Tendeloo ,
John W. Nicholson ,
Nichola J. Coleman ,
Ian J. Slipper  and
Samantha Booth
Elizabeta Gjorgievska*
Affiliation:
Department of Paediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, University Ss. Cyril and Methodius, Vodnjanska 17, 1000 Skopje, Republic of Macedonia
Gustaaf Van Tendeloo
Affiliation:
Electron Microscopy for Materials Science, University of Antwerp, 2020 Antwerp, Belgium
John W. Nicholson
Affiliation:
School of Sport, Health and Applied Science, St. Mary’s University College, Twickenham, TW1 4SX London, UK
Nichola J. Coleman
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmaceutical, Chemical and Environmental Sciences, School of Science, University of Greenwich, Chatham Maritime, Kent, ME4 4TB, UK
Ian J. Slipper
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmaceutical, Chemical and Environmental Sciences, School of Science, University of Greenwich, Chatham Maritime, Kent, ME4 4TB, UK
Samantha Booth
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmaceutical, Chemical and Environmental Sciences, School of Science, University of Greenwich, Chatham Maritime, Kent, ME4 4TB, UK
*
*Corresponding author. [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Conventional glass-ionomer cements (GICs) are popular restorative materials, but their use is limited by their relatively low mechanical strength. This paper reports an attempt to improve these materials by incorporation of 10 wt% of three different types of nanoparticles, aluminum oxide, zirconium oxide, and titanium dioxide, into two commercial GICs (ChemFil® Rock and EQUIA™ Fil). The results indicate that the nanoparticles readily dispersed into the cement matrix by hand mixing and reduced the porosity of set cements by filling the empty spaces between the glass particles. Both cements showed no significant difference in compressive strength with added alumina, and ChemFil® Rock also showed no significant difference with zirconia. By contrast, ChemFil® Rock showed significantly higher compressive strength with added titania, and EQUIA™ Fil showed significantly higher compressive strength with both zirconia and titania. Fewer air voids were observed in all nanoparticle-containing cements and this, in turn, reduced the development of cracks within the matrix of the cements. These changes in microstructure provide a likely reason for the observed increases in compressive strength, and overall the addition of nanoparticles appears to be a promising strategy for improving the physical properties of GICs.

Keywords

glass-ionomer cementnanoparticlealuminum oxidezirconium oxidetitanium dioxide
Type
Biological Applications
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , April 2015 , pp. 392 - 406
Copyright
© Microscopy Society of America 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Czarnecka, B., Limanowska-Shaw, H. & Nicholson, J.W. (2002). Buffering and ion release by a glass-ionomer cement under near-neutral and acidic conditions. Biomaterials 23, 2783–2788.Google Scholar
Dionysopoulos, P., Kotsanos, N. & Pataridou, A. (2003). Fluoride release and uptake by four new fluoride releasing restorative materials. J Oral Rehabil 30, 866–872.Google Scholar
El-Kalla, I.H. & Garcia-Godoy, F. (1999). Mechanical properties of glass-ionomer restorative materials. Oper Dent 24, 2–8.Google Scholar
Elsaka, S.E., Hamouda, I.M. & Swain, M.V. (2011). Titanium dioxide nanoparticles addition to a conventional glass-ionomer restorative: Influence on physical and antibacterial properties. J Dent 39, 589–598.Google Scholar
Gjorgievska, E., Nicholson, J.W., Iljovska, S. & Slipper, I.J. (2008). A preliminary study of the water movement across dentin bonded to glass-ionomer cements. Acta Stomatol Croat 42, 326–334.Google Scholar
Gu, Y.W., Yap, A.U.J., Cheang, P. & Khor, K.A. (2005). Zirconia-glass ionomer cement – a potential substitute for Miracle Mix. Scripta Mater 52, 113–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, I.R. (1996). Biochemical effects of fluoride on oral bacteria. J Dent Res 69, 660–667.Google Scholar
Hammouda, I.M. (2009). Reinforcement of conventional glass-ionomer restorative material with short glass fibers. J Mec Behav Biomed Mater 2, 73–81.Google Scholar
Kawano, F., Kon, M., Kobayashi, M. & Miyai, K. (2001). Reinforcement effect of short glass fibers with (CaOP2O5SiO2Al2O3) glass on strength of glass ionomer cement. J Dent 29, 377–380.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khademolhosseini, M.R., Barounian, M.H., Eskandari, A., Aminzare, M., Zahedi, A.M. & Ghahremani, D. (2012). Development of new Al2O3/TiO2 reinforced glass-ionomer cements (GICs) nano-composites. J Basic Appl Sci Res 2, 7526–7529.Google Scholar
Khaled, S.M.Z., Miron, R.J., Hamilton, D.W., Charpentier, P.A. & Rizkalla, A.S. (2010). Reinforcement of resin based cement with titania nanotubes. Dent Mater 26, 169–178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lucas, M.E., Arita, K. & Nishino, M. (2003). Strengthening using a conventional glass ionomer cement hydroxyapatite. Biomaterials 24, 3787–3791.Google Scholar
Moshaverinia, A., Ansari, S., Movasaghi, Z., Billington, R.W., Darr, J.A. & Rehman, I.U. (2008). Modification of conventional glass-ionomer cements with N-vinylpyrrolidone containing polyacids, nano-hydroxy and fluoroapatite to improve mechanical properties. Dent Mater 24, 1381–1390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ngo, H., Mount, G.J. & Peters, M.C. (1997). A study of glass-ionomer cement and its interface with enamel and dentin using a low-temperature, high-resolution scanning electron microscopic technique. Quintessence Int 28, 63–69.Google Scholar
Randall, R.C. & Wilson, N.H.F. (1999). Glass-ionomer restoratives: A systematic review of a secondary caries treatment effect. J Dent Res 78, 628–636.Google Scholar
Schubert, D., Dargusch, R., Raitano, J. & Chan, S.W. (2006). Cerium and yttrium oxide nanoparticles are neuroprotective. Biochem Biophys Res Comm 342, 86–91.Google Scholar
Semyari, H., Sattari, M., Atai, M. & Pournasir, M. (2011). The effect of nanozirconia mixed with glass-ionomer on proliferation of epithelial cells and adhesive molecules. J Periodontol Implant Dent 3, 63–68.Google Scholar
Shi, H., Magaye, R., Castranova, V. & Zhao, J. (2013). Titanium dioxide nanoparticles: A review of current toxicological data. Part Fibre Toxicol 10, 15.Google Scholar
Tay, F.R., Carvalho, R.M. & Pashley, D.H. (2004). Water movement across bonded dentin—Too much of a good thing. J Appl Oral Sci 12, 12–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ten Cate, J.M. & van Duinen, R.N.B. (1995). Hypermineralization of dentinal lesions adjacent to glass-ionomer cement restorations. J Dent Res 76, 1266–1271.Google Scholar
Wilson, A.D. & Nicholson, J.W. (1993). Acid-Base Cements: Their Biomedical and Industrial Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 90–175.Google Scholar
Xia, Y., Zhang, F., Xie, H. & Gu, N. (2008). Nanoparticle-reinforced resin-based dental composites. J Dent 36, 450–455.Google Scholar
Xu, H.H.K., Eichmiller, F.C., Antonucci, J.M., Schumacher, G.E. & Ives, L.K. (2000). Dental resin composites containing ceramic whiskers and precured glass ionomer particles. Dent Mater 16, 356–363.Google Scholar
Yip, H.K., Tay, F.R., Ngo, H.C., Smales, R.J. & Pashley, D.H. (2001). Bonding of contemporary glass-ionomer cements to dentin. Dent Mater 17, 456–470.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed