Conservative Dentistry and Endodontic Journal

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  7 (2022)
Volume  6 (2021)
Volume  5 (2020)
Volume  4 (2019)
Volume  3 (2018)
Volume  2 (2017)
Volume  1 (2016)
Related articles

VOLUME 7 , ISSUE 2 ( July-December, 2022 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

In Vitro Comparative Evaluation of Change in Mass, pH and Fluoride Release of Cention-N and Glass–Ionomer Cement

Vidhya Vijayan, George Babu, Shanthala Mallikarjun, Zareena Madakkattayil Abdu, Hira Sadan, Ashitha Jyothi Ramachandran

Keywords : Cention-N, Glass ionomer cement, Ions, pH, Saliva

Citation Information : Vijayan V, Babu G, Mallikarjun S, Abdu ZM, Sadan H, Ramachandran AJ. In Vitro Comparative Evaluation of Change in Mass, pH and Fluoride Release of Cention-N and Glass–Ionomer Cement. Cons Dent Endod J 2022; 7 (2):40-43.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10048-0115

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 03-08-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Abstract

Objective: Type IX GIC is a preferred permanent restorative material in primary teeth for its tooth-colored restorative material, chemical bonding to tooth structure, better physical properties and fluoride release. This comparative study was done to evaluate physical properties of Cention-N with type IX GIC as manufacturer's claims better properties over GIC. Materials and methods: About 100 samples of 10 mm diameter and 3 mm thickness were made from Type IX GIC and CN using Teflon molds and stored in artificial saliva at pH (5.5) and stored individually in sterile plastic container at a constant temperature during the entire experiment. They were divided into two equal groups (group A and B). Samples from group A were used to determine the change in mass and pH and group B were used to determine fluoride release at different time intervals of 1 week and 1 month and was evaluated using electronic weighing machine, digital pH meter, and spectrophotometer. Results: Statistically significant pH and fluoride release were observed in CN both at the end of 1 week and 1 month, and a significant change in mass was observed in Type IX GIC at the end of 1 month. Conclusion: Cention-N can be a better alternative as it demonstrated an increase in pH and fluoride release than Type IX GIC.

PDF Share
  1. Duangthip D, Chen KJ, Gao SS, et al. Managing early childhood caries with atraumatic restorative treatment and topical silver and fluoride agents. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2017;14(10):1204. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14101204.
  2. Menezes-Silva R, Cabral RN, Pascotto RC, et al. Mechanical and optical properties of conventional restorative glass-ionomer cements-a systematic review. J Appl Oral Sci 2019;27. DOI: 10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0357.
  3. Savas S, Colgecen O, Yasa B, et al. Color stability, roughness, and water sorption/solubility of glass ionomer–based restorative materials. Niger J Clin Prac 2019; 22(6):824. DOI: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_592_18.
  4. Mazumdar P, Das A, Das UK. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of three different direct restorative materials (silver amalgam, glass ionomer cement, Cention N), in Class II restorations using stereomicroscope: An in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res 2019;30(2):277. DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_481_17.
  5. Dawes C. What is the critical pH and why does a tooth dissolve in acid? J Can Dent Assoc 2003;69(11):722–725. PMID: 14653937.
  6. Kaur M, Mann NS, Jhamb A, et al. A comparative evaluation of compressive strength of Cention N with glass ionomer cement: An in-vitro study. Int J Appl Dent Sci 2019;5(1):5–9. DOI: 214031229.
  7. Nicholson JW, Czarnecka B, Limanowska-Shaw H. A preliminary study of the effect of glass-ionomer and related dental cements on the pH of lactic acid storage solutions. Biomater Res 1999;20(2):155–158. DOI: 10.1016/s0142-9612(98)00153-7.
  8. Czarnecka B, Nicholson JW. Ion release by resin-modified glass-ionomer cements into water and lactic acid solutions. J Dent 2006;34(8):539–543. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2005.08.007.
  9. Abduo J, Swain M. Self-reparability of glass-ionomer cements: An in vitro investigation. Eur J Oral Sci 2011;119(2):187–191. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2011.00810.x.
  10. Sidhu SK. Glass-ionomer cements restorative materials: A sticky subject? Aust Dent J 2011;56:23–30. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2010.01293.x.
  11. Czarnecka B, Limanowska-Shaw H, Nicholson JW. Buffering and ion-release by a glass-ionomer cement under near-neutral and acidic conditions. Biomat Res 2002;23(13):2783–2788.
  12. Crisp S, Lewis BG, Wilson AD. Glass ionomer cements: Chemistry of erosion. J Dent Res. 1976;55(6):1032–1041. DOI: 10.1177/0022 0345760550060501.
  13. Nicholson JW, Millar BJ, Czarnecka B, et al. Storage of polyacid-modified resin composites (“compomers”) in lactic acid solution. Dent Mater J 1999;15(6):413–416. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(99)00067-6.
  14. Wang L, Cefaly DF, Santos JL, et al. In vitro interactions between lactic acid solution and art glass-ionomer cements. J Appl Oral Sci 2009;17(4):274–279. DOI: 10.1590/s1678-77572009000 400002.
  15. Markovic DL, Petrovic BB, Peric TO. Fluoride content and recharge ability of five glass ionomer dental materials. BMC Oral Health 2008;8(1):21. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6831-8-21
  16. Tyas MJ, Burrow MF. Adhesive restorative materials: A review. Aust Dent J 2004;49(3):112–121, 112–154. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2004.tb00059.x.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.