EVALUATION OF LOOSELY BOUND WATER LOSS FROM DIFFERENT COMPOSITIONS OF GLASS IONOMER CEMENT

Authors

  • Muhammad Asif Ashfaq Memorial Hospital, Karachi
  • Muhammad Adeel Ahmed Assistant Professor King Faisal University Al- Ahsa
  • Sofia Malik Associate Professor, DIKIOHS, Dow Univeristy of Health Sciences
  • Ziaullah Choudhry Associate Professor, Dow International Dental College
  • Nouman Mughal Assistant Professor, Dow International Medical College
  • Farah Naz Professor, Dow International Dental College

Abstract

Background: Water is an essential component of glass ionomer cement. Water balance is probably the most important and least understood mechanism with the glass ionomer cement. Excessive water in glass ionomer produce weak cement while less amount of water produce cement which is relatively stronger initially but later results in the weakening of the cement. Water present in glass ionomer cement is classified according to its nature of being held in to the cement as tightly bound and loosely bound. The amount of loosely bound water loss from various composition of glass ionomer cement remains unknown. Methods: The study was conducted at the Department of Materials, Queen Mary University of London. Two different composition of glass ionomer cements were used in this experiment in which the amount of water absorbed by the different compositions of cement on 1, 3, 7 and 14 days were evaluated and the loss of water was measured after that period until the loss became constant. A total of 25 samples of each GIC composition, 5 samples were immersed in water for 24 hours, 5 in water for 3 days, 5 for 7 days and 5 for 14 days. The remaining 5 samples were directly placed into the desiccator without immersing it in the water. The total water content of both glass ionomer cements was calculated from its chemical composition. The samples were weighed every hour for first 3 hours and then every 24 hours until the weight of the sample became constant. Samples placed in water for 1, 3, 7 and 14 days were dried before weighing with a tissue. Results: The amount of water uptake in all the compositions was not that significant in relation to time. In case of Fuji IX, amount of water loss percentage did not vary with increasing time interval. The water loss was rapid in the first 24 hours but it slowed down with time and became constant after 3 days however in Ketac molar water loss slightly varied with time interval. Conclusion: It is concluded that the amount of water uptake in both glass ionomer cement is not significant in relation to time. The loss of loosely bound water becomes constant with time after 24 hours for both compositions of glass ionomer cements.Keywords: Loosly bound water; Glass ionomer; Cement

Author Biographies

Muhammad Asif, Ashfaq Memorial Hospital, Karachi

Dental Consultant

Muhammad Adeel Ahmed, Assistant Professor King Faisal University Al- Ahsa

Department of Restorative Dentistry

Sofia Malik, Associate Professor, DIKIOHS, Dow Univeristy of Health Sciences

Department of Dental Material

Ziaullah Choudhry, Associate Professor, Dow International Dental College

Department of Prosthodontics

Nouman Mughal, Assistant Professor, Dow International Medical College

Department of Pathology

Farah Naz, Professor, Dow International Dental College

Department of Operative Dentistry

References

Craig RG, Welker D, Rothaut J, Krumbholz KG, Stefan KP, Dermann K, et al. Dental materials. Wiley Online Library; 2000.

Wilson AD, McLean JW. Glass-Ionomer cement. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co; 1988.

Sidhu S. Glass‐ionomer cement restorative materials: a sticky subject? Aust Dent J 2011;56(Suppl 1):23–30.

Katsuyama S, Ishikawa T, Fujii B. Glass ionomer dental cement: the materials and their clinical use: Medico Dental Media International; 1993.

Crisp S, Wilson AD. Reactions in glass ionomer cements: III. The precipitation reaction. J Dent Res 1974;53(6):1420–4.

Nicholson JW. Chemistry of glass-ionomer cements: a review. Biomaterials 1998;19(6):485–94.

Wasson EA, Nicholson JW. New aspects of the setting of glass-ionomer cements. J Dent Res 1993;72(2):481–3.

Wasson EA, Nicholson JW. A study of the relationship between setting chemistry and properties of modified glass‐poly (alkenoate) cements. Br Polym J 1990;23(1‐2):179–83.

Billington RW, Williams JA, Pearson GJ. Ion processes in glass ionomer cements. J Dent 2006;34(8):544–55.

Crisp S, Pringuer MA, Wardleworth D, Wilson AD. Reactions in glass ionomer cements: II. An infrared spectroscopic study. J Dent Res 1974;53(6):1414–9.

Anusavice KJ, Shen C, Rawls HR. Phillips' science of dental materials: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2013.

Wilson AD, Paddon JM, Crisp S. The hydration of dental cements. J Dent Res 1979;58(3):1065–71.

Lohbauer U. Dental glass ionomer cements as permanent filling materials? –Properties, limitations and future trends. Materials 2009;3(1):76–96.

Nicholson JW. The History and Background to Glass-Ionomer Dental Cements. Glass-Ionomers in Dentistry: Springer, 2016; p.1–24.

Sidhu SK, Nicholson JW. A review of glass-ionomer cements for clinical dentistry. J Funct Biomater 2016;7(3):E16.

Kamatham R, Reddy SJ. Surface coatings on glass ionomer restorations in Pediatric dentistry-Worthy or not? J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2013;31(4):229–33.

Kishore G, Sai-Sankar AJ, Pratap-Gowd M, Sridhar M, Pranitha K, Sai-Krishna V. Comparative Evaluation of Fluoride Releasing Ability of Various Restorative Materials after the Application of Surface Coating Agents - An In-vitro Study. Journal of clinical and diagnostic research: J Clin Diagn Res 2016;10(12):ZC38–41.

Farias JFG de, Andrade AKM, Silva FDS da C, Duarte RM. Water sorption and solubility of glass ionomer cements indicated for atraumatic restorative treatment considering the time and the pH of the storage solution. RGO-Rev Gaúcha Odontol 2018;66(1):29–34.

Downloads

Published

2019-01-15

Most read articles by the same author(s)

<< < 1 2