EFFICACY OF GIOMER VERSUS GLASS IONOMER IN COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AND FLUORIDE DYNAMICS
Main Article Content
Keywords
Giomer, glass ionomer cement, compressive strength, fluoride release, fluoride recharge, restorative material.
Abstract
Restorative materials that combine mechanical durability with fluoride release are essential for caries prevention. Glass ionomer cements (GICs) are known for their fluoride dynamics but have limited strength, whereas giomers incorporate pre-reacted glass fillers into a resin matrix, promising improved mechanical and fluoride characteristics. This study compared the compressive strength and fluoride release–recharge behavior of giomer and glass ionomer restorative materials.
Methods: An experimental in vitro design was used in this study. Fourteen disc specimens of giomer and glass ionomer were prepared for fluoride release testing, and another fourteen specimens of giomer and composite were evaluated for compressive strength. Fluoride release was measured for six days using an ion-selective electrode and ion chromatography, followed by fluoride recharge with 250 ppm sodium fluoride solution and reassessment on days 7 and 13. The compressive strength was measured using a universal testing machine. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and Bonferroni tests at a significance level of p < 0.05.
Results: Giomer exhibited a higher mean compressive strength (271.36 ± 19.65 MPa) than the composite (238.60 ± 57.34 MPa), although the difference was not significant (p = 0.178). Glass ionomer released significantly more fluoride than giomer, before and after recharge (p < 0.001).
Conclusion: Giomer exhibited superior compressive strength, whereas glass ionomer demonstrated greater fluoride release and recharge ability. Material selection should consider clinical demands, with giomers favored for strength and glass ionomers for fluoride-based caries prevention.
References
2. Sing S. Advances in glass ionomer cement: a review. Indian J. Contemp. Dent. 2019 Jul;7(2):32.
3. Bali P, Prabhakar AR, Basappa N. An invitro comparative evaluation of compressive strength and antibacterial activity of conventional GIC and hydroxyapatite reinforced GIC in different storage media. Journal of clinical and diagnostic research: JCDR. 2015 Jul 1;9(7): ZC51.
4. Poornima P, Koley P, Kenchappa M, Nagaveni NB, Bharath KP, Neena IE. Comparative evaluation of compressive strength and surface microhardness of EQUIA Forte, resin-modified glass-ionomer cement with conventional glass-ionomer cement. Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry. 2019 Jul 1;37(3):265-70.
5. Griffin Jr JD. Unique Characteristics of the Giomer Restorative System: A line of regenerative materials for anterior and posterior restorations. Insid Dent. 2014;10(3):4-5.
6. Kang J, Yoo S, Kim J, Kim J. Fluoride release and compressive strength of several giomers. Journal of the Korean Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. 2016;43(3):292-8.
7. Tarasingh P, Reddy JS, Suhasini K, Hemachandrika I. Comparative evaluation of antimicrobial efficacy of resin-modified glass ionomers, compomers and giomers–an invitro study. Journal of clinical and diagnostic research: JCDR. 2015 Jul 1;9(7): ZC85.
8. Bollu IP, Hari A, Thumu J, Velagula LD, Bolla N, Varri S, Kasaraneni S, Nalli SV. Comparative evaluation of microleakage between nano-ionomer, giomer and resin modified glass ionomer cement in class V cavities-CLSM study. Journal of clinical and diagnostic research: JCDR. 2016 May 1;10(5): ZC66.
9. Wiegand A, Buchalla W, Attin T. Review on fluoride-releasing restorative materials—fluoride release and uptake characteristics, antibacterial activity and influence on caries formation. Dental materials. 2007 Mar 1;23(3):343-62.
10. Rai S, Kumari RA, Meena N. Comparative assessment of fluoride release and recharge through newer fluoride releasing posterior restorative materials: An: in vitro: study. Journal of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics. 2019 Nov 1;22(6):544-7.
11. Paul S, Raina A, Kour S, Mishra S, Bansal M, Sengupta A. Comparative evaluation of fluoride release and re-release and recharge potential of Zirconomer Improved and Cention. Journal of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics. 2020 Jul 1;23(4):402-6.
12. May E, Donly KJ. Fluoride release and re-release from a bioactive restorative material. American journal of dentistry. 2017 Dec;30(6):305-8.
13. Moshaverinia M, Navas A, Jahedmanesh N, Shah KC, Moshaverinia A, Ansari S. Comparative evaluation of the physical properties of a reinforced glass ionomer dental restorative material. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 2019 Aug 1;122(2):154-9.
14. Ozer F, Irmak O, Yakymiv O, Mohammed A, Pande R, Saleh N, Blatz M. Three-year clinical performance of two giomer restorative materials in restorations. Operative dentistry. 2021 Jan 1;46(1): E60-7.
15. Garoushi S, Vallittu PK, Lassila L. Characterization of fluoride releasing restorative dental materials. Dental materials journal. 2018 Mar 26;37(2):293-300.
16. Wang L, D'Alpino PH, Lopes LG, Pereira JC. Mechanical properties of dental restorative materials: relative contribution of laboratory tests. Journal of Applied Oral Science. 2003; 11:162-7.
17. Gurgan S, Kutuk ZB, Ergin E, Oztas SS, Cakir FY. Four-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a glass ionomer restorative system. Operative dentistry. 2015 Mar 1;40(2):134-43.
18. Mousavinasab SM, Meyers I. Fluoride release by glass ionomer cements, compomer and giomer. Dental research journal. 2009;6(2):75.
19. Dziuk Y, Chhatwani S, Möhlhenrich SC, Tulka S, Naumova EA, Danesh G. Fluoride release from two types of fluoride-containing orthodontic adhesives: Conventional versus resin-modified glass ionomer cements—An in vitro study. PloS one. 2021 Feb 26;16(2): e0247716.
20. Quader SA, Alam MS, Bashar AK, Gafur A, Al Mansur MA. Compressive strength, fluoride release and recharge of giomer. Update Dental College Journal. 2012;2(2):28-37.
21. Bansal R, Bansal T. A comparative evaluation of the amount of fluoride release and re-release after recharging from aesthetic restorative materials: an in vitro study. Journal of clinical and diagnostic research: JCDR. 2015 Aug 1;9(8): ZC11.
22. Mungara J, Philip J, Joseph E, Rajendran S, Elangovan A, Selvaraju G. Comparative evaluation of fluoride release and recharge of pre-reacted glass ionomer composite and nano-ionomeric glass ionomer with daily fluoride exposure: An: in vitro: study. Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry. 2013 Oct 1;31(4):234-9.
23. Borges FT, Campos WR, Munari LS, Moreira AN, Paiva SM, Magalhães CS. Cariostatic effect of fluoride-containing restorative materials associated with fluoride gels on root dentin. Journal of Applied Oral Science. 2010; 18:453-60.
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All articles published in JPTCP are licensed under Copyright Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Dr. Sheikh Muhammad Abdul Quader
Associate Professor, Department Of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, Update Dental College & Hospital, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Dr. Abdullah Al Mahmud
Assistant Professor, Department Of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, Sapporo Dental College & Hospital, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Mst. Laila Akter Banu
Assistant Professor, Department Of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, Dhaka Dental College & Hospital, Dhaka, Bangladesh