Journal List > Restor Dent Endod > v.43(3) > 1148364

Camargo, Lancellotti, Lima, Martins, and Gonçalves: Effects of a bleaching agent on properties of commercial glass-ionomer cements

Abstract

Objectives

This study evaluated the effects of a bleaching agent on the composition, mechanical properties, and surface topography of 6 conventional glass-ionomer cements (GICs) and one resin-modified GIC.

Materials and Methods

For 3 days, the specimens were subjected to three 20-minute applications of a 37% H2 O2-based bleaching agent and evaluated for water uptake (WTK), weight loss (WL), compressive strength (CS), and Knoop hardness number (KHN). Changes in surface topography and chemical element distribution were also analyzed by energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy and scanning electron microscopy. For statistical evaluation, the Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon paired tests (ɑ = 0.05) were used to evaluate WTK and WL. CS specimens were subjected to 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey post hoc test (α = 0.05), and KH was evaluated by one-way ANOVA, the Holm-Sidak post hoc test (ɑ = 0.05), and the t-test for independent samples (ɑ = 0.05).

Results

The bleaching agent increased the WTK of Maxxion R, but did not affect the WL of any GICs. It had various effects on the CS, KHN, surface topography, and the chemical element distribution of the GICs.

Conclusions

The bleaching agent with 37% H2 O2 affected the mechanical and surface properties of GICs. The extent of the changes seemed to be dependent on exposure time and cement composition.

References

1. Wilson AD, Kent BE. The glassionomer cement, a new translucent dental filling material. J Chem Technol Biotechnol. 1971; 21:313.
crossref
2. Baroudi K, Mahmoud RS, Tarakji B. Fluoride release of glass ionomer restorations after bleaching with two different bleaching materials. Eur J Dent. 2013; 7:196–200.
crossref
3. Markovic DL, Petrovic BB, Peric TO. Fluoride content and recharge ability of five glassionomer dental materials. BMC Oral Health. 2008; 8:21.
crossref
4. 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; 23:343–362.
crossref
5. Arita K, Yamamoto A, Shinonaga Y, Harada K, Abe Y, Nakagawa K, Sugiyama S. Hydroxyapatite particle characteristics influence the enhancement of the mechanical and chemical properties of conventional restorative glass ionomer cement. Dent Mater J. 2011; 30:672–683.
6. Benetti AR, Jacobsen J, Lehnhoff B, Momsen NC, Okhrimenko DV, Telling MT, Kardjilov N, Strobl M, Seydel T, Manke I, Bordallo HN. How mobile are protons in the structure of dental glass ionomer cements? Sci Rep. 2015; 5:8972.
crossref
7. Bresciani E, Barata TJ, Fagundes TC, Adachi A, Terrin MM, Navarro MF. Compressive and diametral tensile strength of glass ionomer cements. J Appl Oral Sci. 2004; 12:344–348.
crossref
8. Carvalho FG, Sampaio CS, Fucio SB, Carlo HL, Correr-Sobrinho L, Puppin-Rontani RM. Effect of chemical and mechanical degradation on surface roughness of three glass ionomers and a nanofilled resin composite. Oper Dent. 2012; 37:509–517.
crossref
9. Khoroushi M, Keshani F. A review of glassionomers: From conventional glassionomer to bioactive glassionomer. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2013; 10:411–420.
10. Baroudi K, Mahmoud RS, Tarakji B, Altamimi MA. Effect of vital bleaching on disintegration tendency of glass ionomer restorations. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014; 8:214–217.
11. de Paula AB, de Fúcio SB, Alonso RC, Ambrosano GM, Puppin-Rontani RM. Influence of chemical degradation on the surface properties of nano restorative materials. Oper Dent. 2014; 39:E109–E117.
crossref
12. El-Murr J, Ruel D, St-Georges AJ. Effects of external bleaching on restorative materials: a review. J Can Dent Assoc. 2011; 77:b59.
13. Markovic L, Jordan RA, Glasser MC, Arnold WH, Nebel J, Tillmann W, Ostermann T, Zimmer S. Effects of bleaching agents on surface roughness of filling materials. Dent Mater J. 2014; 33:59–63.
crossref
14. Turker SB, Biskin T. Effect of three bleaching agents on the surface properties of three different esthetic restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 89:466–473.
crossref
15. Samiei M, Janani M, Vahdati A, Alemzadeh Y, Bahari M. Scanning electron microscopy and energy-dispersive X-ray microanalysis of set CEM cement after application of different bleaching agents. Iran Endod J. 2017; 12:191–195.
16. Yu H, Li Q, Lin Y, Buchalla W, Wang Y. Influence of carbamide peroxide on the flexural strength of tooth-colored restorative materials: an in vitro study at different environmental temperatures. Oper Dent. 2010; 35:300–307.
17. Yu H, Li Q, Wang YN, Cheng H. Effects of temperature and in-office bleaching agents on surface and subsurface properties of aesthetic restorative materials. J Dent. 2013; 41:1290–1296.
crossref
18. Zavanelli AC, Mazaro VQ, Silva CR, Zavanelli RA, Mancuso DN. Surface roughness analysis of four restorative materials exposed to 10% and 15% carbamide peroxide. Int J Prosthodont. 2011; 24:155–157.
19. Crim GA. Prerestorative bleaching: effect on microleakage of Class V cavities. Quintessence Int. 1992; 23:823–825.
20. Mair L, Joiner A. The measurement of degradation and wear of three glass ionomers following peroxide bleaching. J Dent. 2004; 32(Supplementary 1):41–45.
crossref
21. Briso AL, Lima AP, Gonçalves RS, Gallinari MO, dos Santos PH. Transenamel and transdentinal penetration of hydrogen peroxide applied to cracked or microabrasioned enamel. Oper Dent. 2014; 39:166–173.
crossref
22. Gonçalves LS, Moraes RR, Ogliari FA, Boaro L, Braga RR, Consani S. Improved polymerization efficiency of methacrylate-based cements containing an iodonium salt. Dent Mater. 2013; 29:1251–1255.
crossref
23. Fonseca RB, Branco CA, Quagliatto PS, Gonçalves LS, Soares CJ, Carlo HL, Correr-Sobrinho L. Influence of powder/liquid ratio on the radiodensity and diametral tensile strength of glass ionomer cements. J Appl Oral Sci. 2010; 18:577–584.
crossref
24. Lim HN, Kim SH, Yu B, Lee YK. Influence of HEMA content on the mechanical and bonding properties of experimental HEMA-added glass ionomer cements. J Appl Oral Sci. 2009; 17:340–349.
crossref
25. Topaloglu-Ak A, Cogulu D, Ersin NK, Sen BH. Microhardness and surface roughness of glass ionomer cements after APF and TiF4 applications. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2012; 37:45–51.
crossref
26. Sidhu SK, Nicholson JW. A review of glassionomer cements for clinical dentistry. J Funct Biomater. 2016; 7:16.
crossref
27. Della Bona A, Rosa V, Cecchetti D. Influence of shade and irradiation time on the hardness of composite resins. Braz Dent J. 2007; 18:231–234.
crossref
28. Cehreli ZC, Yazici R, García-Godoy F. Effect of home-use bleaching gels on fluoride releasing restorative materials. Oper Dent. 2003; 28:605–609.
29. Cacciafesta V, Sfondrini MF, Tagliani P, Klersy C. In-vitro fluoride release rates from 9 orthodontic bonding adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 132:656–662.
30. Xu X, Burgess JO. Compressive strength, fluoride release and recharge of fluoride-releasing materials. Biomaterials. 2003; 24:2451–2461.
crossref
31. Lee KH, Kim HI, Kim KH, Kwon YH. Mineral loss from bovine enamel by a 30% hydrogen peroxide solution. J Oral Rehabil. 2006; 33:229–233.
crossref

Figure 1.
Scanning electron microscopic images of glass-ionomer cements (×2,000): (A) Ketac Cem, (B) Ketac Molar, (C) Maxxion R, (D) Vitremer, (E) Vitro Fil, (F) Vitro Molar, and (G) Vidrion R. In the first column are shown the untreated specimens, followed by the treated groups, including the first (′), second (′′), and third (′′′) sessions, after 24, 48, and 72 hours, respectively.
rde-43-e32f1.tif
Table 1.
Glass-ionomer cements (GICs) evaluated in the present study
GIC/batch No. Composition* Manufacturer P/L ratio Mixing time (sec)
Ketac Molar EasyMix/56908 Powder: glass powder, polycarboxylic acid, pigments
Liquid: water, tartaric acid, conservation agents
3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA 1/1 60
Ketac Cem Easy Mix/56908 Powder: glass powder, polycarboxylic acid, pigments
Liquid: water, tartaric acid, conservation agents
3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA 1/2 60
Vitremer/544223 Powder: radiopaque fluoroaluminosilicate glass, microencapsulated potassium persulfate, ascorbic acid
Liquid: aqueous solution of a polycarboxylic acid modified with pendant methacrylate groups, water, hydroxyethylmethacrylate, photoinitiators
3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA 1/1 45
Vitro Fil/14111774 Powder: strontium aluminum silicate, dehydrated polyacrylic acid, iron oxide
Liquid: polyacrylic acid, tartaric acid, distilled water
NOVA DFL, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil 1/1 60
Vitro Molar/15030424 Powder: barium aluminum silicate, dehydrated polyacrylic acid, iron oxide
Liquid: polyacrylic acid, tartaric acid, distilled water
NOVA DFL, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil 1/1 20
Vidrion R/0321114 Powder: sodium-calcium-fluoroaluminosilicate glass, polyacrylic acid and pigments
Liquid: tartaric acid, distilled water
SS White, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil 1/1 60
Maxxion R/031214 Powder: fluoroaluminosilicate glass, polycarboxylic acid, calcium fluoride, radiopacifiers
Liquid: polyacrylic acid, tartaric acid, distilled water
FGM, Joinville, SC, Brazil 1/1 60

* This information was provided by the manufacturers in the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and instruction sheets.

Table 2.
Median, interquartile range, and percentages of water uptake (WTK) and weight loss (WL)
Group WTK (µg) WL (µg)
Not treated % Treated % Not treated % Treated %
Ketac Molar 1.3 (1.2–1.65) Aab 4.8 1.0 (1.0–1.1) Aa 4.3 0.9 (0.38–1.15) Aab 2.3 0.7 (0.45–0.83) Aab 2.6
Ketac Cem 0.5 (0.38–1.0) Aab 1.7 1.2 (1.15–1.55) Aa 5.2 0.8 (0.53–1.33) Aab 2.4 0.9 (0.18–2.85) Aab 5.5
Vitremer 3.6 (3.53–4.38) Aa 11.7 2.5 (2.38–2.6) Aa 11.1 0.1 (0.08–0.58) Ab 1.4 0.1 (0.0–0.23) Ab 0.5
Maxxion R 0.1 (0.1–0.85) Bb 2.2 4.7 (4.48–4.73) Aa 23.4 5.0 (2.0–5.4) Aa 19.3 3.0 (2.98–3.33) Aa 15.8
Vidrion R 0.4 (0.1–0.85) Ab 1.9 1.0 (1.0–1.1) Aa 5.2 0.8 (0.58–3.45) Aab 8.1 0.7 (0.45–0.83) Aab 3.3

WTK (M2–M3) and water solubility (M1–M3) of the specimens were calculated in micrograms (µg) from the differences in weight gain or loss during the immersion in water and drying cycles. Different uppercase superscript letters indicate a statistically significant difference within the row (p < 0.05). Different lowercase superscript letters indicate a statistically significant difference within the column (p < 0.05).

Table 3.
Compressive strength (MPa) of glass-ionomer cement (GIC) restoratives used in this study
GIC Untreated Treated
Vitremer 113.8 ± 8.1 Aa 92.9 ± 15.9 Ba
Ketac Molar 112.6 ± 15.1 Aa 72.7 ± 16.7 Bb
Ketac Cem 112.4 ± 12.6 Aa 55.4 ± 15.0 Bb
Vitro Molar 75.0 ± 8.5 Ab 64.9 ± 14.3 Ab
Vitro Fil 66.5 ± 7.5 bc *
Maxxion R 50.9 ± 4.7Ac 64.1 ± 17.5 Ab
Vidrion R 46.5 ± 14.9 c

Data are shown as means ± standard deviations. Different uppercase superscript letters indicate a statistically significant difference within the row (p < 0.05). Different lowercase superscript letters indicate a statistically significant difference within the column (p < 0.05).

* Vitro Fil and Vidrion R were not tested after the bleaching protocol because the specimens disintegrated.

Table 4.
Knoop hardness number of glass-ionomer cement (GIC) restoratives used in this study after different bleaching sessions
GIC Bleaching treatment Time (session)
24 hr (before the protocol) 24 hr (first session) 48 hr (second session) 72 hr (third session)
Vidrion R 49.8 ± 5.4 Ba 53.4 ± 5.2 ABa 57.8 ± 3.3 Aa 49.8 ± 5.2 Ba
  + 53.1 ± 4.8 ABa 56.0 ± 5.2 ABa 58.1 ± 6.6 Aa 50.7 ± 6.1 Ba
Vitremer 96.8 ± 11.0 Aa 97.6 ± 12.3 Ab 91.2 ± 10.0 Aa 106.2 ± 10.7 Aa
  + 100.6 ± 9.8 Ba 119.5 ± 20.1 Aa 100.9 ± 19.8 Ba 113.1 ± 12.1 ABa
Vitro Molar 51.1 ± 5.2 Ca 57.1 ± 7.0 BCa 60.2 ± 5.9 Aa 60.5 ± 9.4 Aba
  + 51.0 ± 5.6 Ba 58.1 ± 5.9 ABa 63.7 ± 9.5 Aa 53.3 ± 8.6 Ba
Ketac Cem 74.1 ± 8.8 Ba 83.2 ± 10.6 ABa 77.2 ± 8.8 ABa 86.7 ± 8.3 Aa
  + 80.7 ± 11.1 Aa 87.3 ± 5.9 Aa 80.7 ± 7.6 Aa 82.9 ± 5.5 Aa
Ketac Molar 143.5 ± 25.6 Aa 86.6 ± 17.2 Bb 80.8 ± 11.2 Bb 77.1 ± 11.1 Bb
  + 148.9 ± 23.9 Aa 120.9 ± 16.6 Ba 119.9 ± 26.5 Ba 114.1 ± 10.9 Ba
Vitro Fil 49.5 ± 5.8 Ba 60.0 ± 7.2 Aa 51.8 ± 6.3 Ba 42.0 ± 4.5 Ca
  + 48.0 ± 2.7 Ba 60.0 ± 7.7 Aa 44.8 ± 6.1 Ba 37.2 ± 6.5 Ca
Maxxion R 41.7 ± 7.5 Aa 40.2 ± 2.2 Aa 40.1 ± 4.5 Aa 40.5 ± 4.5 Aa
  + 48.9 ± 6.2 Aa 41.1 ± 9.4 ABa 39.1 ± 4.8 Ba 38.2 ± 4.7 Ba

Data are shown as means ± standard deviations. Different uppercase superscript letters indicate a statistically significant difference within each row, that is, within each cement separately (p < 0.05). Different lowercase superscript letters indicate a statistically significant difference between the presence and absence of the application of each bleaching agent (p < 0.05).

Table 5.
Distribution of the chemical elements of the composition of the glass-ionomer cements (GICs) in relative percentage by weight (wt%).
GIC Time (sessions) Chemical elements (wt%)
C O F Na Al Si Ca Nb W Ba-L
Vidrion R Untreated 30.7 31.1 7.4 2.4 9.9 5.5 8.2 4.9
  24 hr 35.6 30.4 7.7 2.5 9.7 6.4 7.7
  48 hr 31.4 34.0 7.7 2.5 10.5 6.7 7.3
  72 hr 29.9 28.8 5.6 1.5 6.5 3.1 5.7
Vitremer Untreated 46.5 25.2 8.9 1.4 6.6 11.5 26.7
  24 hr 46.7 16.1 3.3 0.9 2.6 3.7 26.7
  48 hr 47.2 21.1 4.3 0.7 4.0 4.2 18.6
  72 hr 35.0 23.7 4.7 0.8 5.3 9.0 21.5
Vitro Molar Untreated 35.1 32.5 6.1 2.3 8.9 7.1 8.3
  24 hr 33.6 34.2 6.9 2.2 8.0 6.4 8.6
  48 hr 27.2 28.2 5.8 1.2 7.8 6.2 6.5 17.1
  72 hr 34.4 29.1 6.3 2.2 9.8 8.3 9.9
Ketac Cem Untreated 27.6 32.4 10.3 2.7 7.9 9.1 9.9
  24 hr 26.3 34.3 8.9 2.3 9.2 9.7 9.2 22.3
  48 hr 29.9 32.4 8.7 2.4 9.0 10.6 6.9 18.3
  72 hr 25.3 30.1 6.0 1.4 5.4 7.7 2.4 19.1
Ketac Molar Untreated 29.1 37.3 6.5 2.0 9.4 7.5 8.1
  24 hr 22.1 29.5 5.4 2.1 6.3 4.5 7.3 22.4
  48 hr 19.9 33.2 6.5 1.4 7.1 7.8 5.8 18.3
  72 hr 21.1 33.5 8.7 1.6 6.2 8.2 6.5 14.2
Vitro Fil Untreated 28.8 25.7 4.3 1.6 5.4 7.2 1.9 12.1 11.9
  24 hr 20.2 22.4 5.4 1.5 6.0 5.4 1.8 17.6 14.0
  48 hr 43.5 18.2 3.1 1.1 3.6 4.6 19.8
  72 hr 22.5 23.8 6.5 1.2 8.4 6.3 33.3
Maxxion Untreated 26.2 25.9 6.8 3.4 7.6 3.0 3.7 23.2
  24 hr 33.5 30.9 10.3 4.7 11.1 5.1 4.3
  48 hr 32.3 31.0 9.7 4.6 11.4 5.9 5.0
  72 hr 27.1 29.1 6.1 3.2 7.2 6.7 2.7 17.8

Although there are limitations of energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy in identifying and quantifying chemical elements with low atomic numbers, such as C, the relative quantities (wt%) of elements were obtained using the χ2 test.

TOOLS
Similar articles