Zinc Interaction with Glass-Ionomer Restorative Materials
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12970/2308-8354.2013.01.01.6Keywords:
Kinematics, Robotics, TMS, Reaching, Rehabilitation.Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of addition of zinc sulfate to conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials. The samples were prepared by addition of zinc sulfate to glass ionomer at different concentrations. The samples were tested for fluoride, zinc and aluminum release at different time intervals. The antibacterial activity of the restorative materials was tested at 24 and 48 hours. The hardness and diametral tensile strength were measured at 24 hours and 2 weeks. All materials showed highest initial fluoride, zinc and aluminum release rates during the first 2 to 3 days, dropping quickly over 2 weeks and becoming largely stabilized near the test period. The conventional materials released more fluoride and aluminum than that of resin-modified material. Zinc addition increased inhibition of S. mutans growth without threatens the diametral tensile strength and hardness of the tested glass-ionomer materials. Conventional glass-ionomer showed inhibition activity against S. mutans greater than that of resin-modified materials did. Resin-modified glass ionomer showed no significant difference in the inhibitory action. There was highly positive correlation between fluoride, zinc and aluminum release. Chemically-activated materials showed positive and highly significant correlation between ionic release and antibacterial action, while light cured materials showed no significant correlation. There were highly negative correlation between fluoride, zinc, aluminum released and mechanical properties, i.e., restorative materials with high fluoride, aluminum release have lower mechanical properties. Storage of specimens in water for 2 weeks leads to increased diametral tensile strength and hardness of all materials. Keywords: Glass ionomer, restorative material, zinc sulfate, antibacterial action, elemental release.References
[1] Mount G. Glass-ionomer cements: past, present and future. Oper Dent 1994; 19(3): 82-90.
[2] Hotta M, Aono M. Adaptation to the cavity floor of the lightcured glass ionomer cement base under a composite restoration. J Oral Rehabil 1994; 21(6): 679-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1994.tb01183.x
[3] Wilson AD, McClean JW. Glass ionomer cement, Quintessence, Chicago 1988.
[4] Mitra SB, Kedrowski BL. Long-term mechanical properties of glass ionomers. Dent Mater 1994; 10(2): 78-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0109-5641(94)90044-2
[5] White JM, Eakle WS. Rationale and treatment approach in minimally invasive dentistry. J Am Aent Assoc 2000; 131(Suppl): 13S-15S.
[6] Forsten L. Fluoride release and uptake by glass-ionomers and related materials and its clinical effect. Biomaterials 1998; 19(6): 503-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(97)00130-0
[7] Hatibovic-Kofman S, Suljak JP, Koch G. Remineralization of natural carious lesions with a glass ionomer cement. Swed Dent J 1997; 21(1-2): 11-17.
[8] Katz R. Root caries-is it the caries problem of the future? J Can Dent Assoc 1985; 51(7): 511-14.
[9] Preston AJ, Agalamanyi EA, Highan SM, Mair LH. The recharge of esthetic dental restorative materials with fluoride in vitro-two years, results. Dent Mater J 2003; 19(1): 32-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(02)00011-8
[10] Bates DG, Navia JM. Chemotherapeutic effect of zinc on streptococcus mutans and rat dental caries. Arch Oral Biol 1979; 24(10-11): 799-805. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0003-9969(79)90041-4
[11] Thevadass KP, Pearson GJ, Anstice HM, Davies EH. Method for enhancing the fluoride release of glass-ionomer cement. Biomater 1996; 17(4): 425-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0142-9612(96)89659-1
[12] Meiers JC, Miller GA. Antibacterial activity of dentin bonding systems, resin-modified glass ionomers, and polyacidmodified composite resins. Oper Dent 1996; 21(2): 257-64.
[13] Izaguirre-Fern, Ndez EJ, Eisenberg AD, Curzon MEG. Interactions of zinc with fluoride on growth, glycolsis and survival of Streptococcus mutans GS-5. Caries Res 1989; 23(1): 18-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000261149
[14] Ingram GS, Horay CP, Stead WJ. Interaction of zinc with dental mineral. Caries Res 1992; 26(4): 248-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000261447
[15] Anderson OH, Dahi JE. Aluminum release from glass ionomer cements during early water exposure in vitro. Biomaterials 1994; 15(11): 882-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0142-9612(94)90111-2
[16] Hayacibara F, Rosa OPS, Koo H, Torres SA,Costa B, Cury JA. Effects of fluoride and aluminum from ionomeric materials on S. mutans biofilm. J Dent Res 2003; 82(4): 267- 83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/154405910308200405
[17] Vercruysse CWJ, De Maeyer EAP, Verbeeck RMH. Fluoride release of polyacid-modified composite resins with and without bonding agents. Dent Mater J 2001; 17(4): 354-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(00)00094-4
[18] Strother JM, Kohn DH, Dennison JB, Clarkson BH. Fluoride release and re-uptake in direct tooth colored restorative materials. Dent Mater J 1998; 14(2): 129-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(98)00019-0
[19] Osinga PWR, Grande RHM, Ballester RY, Simionato MRL, Delgado Rodrigues CR, Muench A. Zinc sulfate addition to glass-ionomer-based cements: influence on physical and antibacterial properties, zinc and fluoride release. Dent Mater J 2003; 19(3): 212-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(02)00032-5
[20] Attar N, Onen A. Fluoride release and uptake characteristics of aesthetic restorative materials. J Oral Rehabil 2002; 29(8): 791-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00902.x
[21] Glasspoole EA, Erickson RL, Davidson CL. A fluoridereleasing composite for dental applications. Dent Mater J 2001; 17(2): 127-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(00)00051-8
[22] Creanor SL, Al-Harthy NS, Gilmour W H, Foye RH, Rogers I, Millett DT. Fluoride release from orthodontic cements––effect of specimen surface area and depth. Dent Mater J 2003; 31(1): 25-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(02)00085-4
[23] Van Dijken JWV, Klfas S, Litra V, Oliveby A. Fluoride and mutans streptococci levels in plaque on aged restorations of resin-modified glass ionomer cement, compomer and resin composite. Caries Res 1997; 31(5): 379-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000262422
[24] Chih LC, Mei HF, You C, Hui-Wen Y, Min-Sheng H, MingYung C, Yu-Chao C. Antibacterial effects of resinous retrograde root filling materials. J Endo 2003; 29(2): 118-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200302000-00008
[25] Imazato S, Kinomoto Y, Tarumi H, Torii M. Incorporation of antibacterial monomer MDPB into dentin primer. J Dent Res 1997; 76: 768-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00220345970760030901
[26] Schwartzman B, Caputo AA, Schein B. Antibacterial action of dental cements. Prosthet Dent J 1980; 43(2): 309-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(80)90407-2
[27] Yap AUJ, Cheang PHN, Chay PL. Mechanical properties of two restorative reinforced glass-ionomer cements. J Oral Rehabil 2002; 29(7): 682-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00908.x
[28] Hammouda IM. Reinforcement of conventional glassionomer restorative material with short glass fibers. JMBBM 2009; 2(1): 73-81.
[29] Elsaka SE, Hamouda IM, Swain MV. Titanium dioxide nanoparticles addition to a conventional glass-ionomer restorative: Influence on physical and antibacterial properties. J Dent 2011; 39(9): 589-98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2011.05.006
[30] Vermeersch G, Leloup G, Vreven J. Fluoride release from glass-ionomer cements, compomers and resin composites. J Oral Rehabil, 2001; 28(1): 26-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2001.00635.x
[31] Momoi Y, Mccabe JF. Fluoride release from light-activated glass-ionomer restorative cements. Dent Mater J 1990; 9(3): 151-7.
[32] Wilson AD. Resin-modified glass-ionomer cements. Int J of Prothodont 1990; 3(1): 425-9.
[33] Miller BH, Komatus H, Nakajima H, Okabe T. Effect of glassionomer manipulation on early fluoride release. Am J Dent 1995; 8(4): 182- 8.
[34] Yip HK, Lam WT, Smales RJ. Fluoride release, weight loss and erosive wear of modern aesthetic restoratives. Br Dent J 1999; 187(5): 265-70.
[35] Verbeek RMH, De Moor RJ, De Witte AM, Trimpeneers LM. Fluoride release process of (resin modified) glass ionomer cements versus (polyacid-modified) composites resins. Biomater 1993; 19(6): 509-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(97)00131-2
[36] Forsten L. Fluoride release and uptake by glass ionomers. Scand J Dent Res 1991; 99(3): 241-7.
[37] Nakajima H, Komatsu H, Okabe T. Aluminum ions in analysis of released fluoride from glass ionomers. J Dentistry 1997; 25(2): 137-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(96)00021-8
[38] Savarino L, Cervellati M, Stea S, Cavedagna D, Donati ME, Pizzoferrato A, Visentin M. In vitro investigation of aluminum and fluoride release from compomers, conventional and resin-modified glass-ionomer cements: a standardized approach. J Biomater Sci Poly Ed 2000; 11(3): 289-300.
[39] Lubben B, Geyer G. Toxicity of glass ionomer cement. Laryngorhinootogie 2001; 80(4): 214-22.
[40] Prati C, Fava F, Di Gioia D, Selighini M, Pashley DH. Antibacterial effectiveness of dentin bonding systems. Dent Mater 1993; 9(6): 338-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0109-5641(93)90053-S
[41] Botelho MG. Inhibitory effects of selected oral bacteria of antibacterial agents incorporated in a glass ionomer cement. Caries Res 2003; 37(2): 108-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000069019
[42] Hotta M, Kawano S, Sekine I. Direct tensile strength of visible light-cured restorative materials containing fluoride. J Oral Rehabil 2001; 28(9): 854-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2001.00677.x
[43] Xiaoming Xu, Burgess JO. Compressive strength, fluoride release and recharge of fluoride-releasing materials. Biomaterials 2003; 24(14): 2451-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(02)00638-5
[44] Gigo Cefally DF, Valarelli FP, Melo Seabra BG, Lia Mondelli RF, Lima Navarro MF. Effect of time on the diametral tensile strength of resin-modified restorative glass ionomer cements and compomer. Braz Dent J 2001; 12(3): 201-4.
