Wilson AD, Kent BE A new translucent cement for dentistry. The glass ionomer cement. Br Dent J. 1972; 132:133-135 https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4802810
Wilson AD The development of glass ionomer cements. Dent Update. 1977; 4:401-412
Randall RC, Wilson NH Glass-ionomer restoratives: a systematic review of a secondary caries treatment effect. J Dent Res. 1999; 78:628-637 https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345990780020101
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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2006.01.022
Yengopal V, Mickenautsch S, Bezerra AC, Leal SC Caries-preventive effect of glass ionomer and resin-based fissure sealants on permanent teeth: a meta analysis. J Oral Sci. 2009; 51:373-382 https://doi.org/10.2334/josnusd.51.373
Combe EC, Burke FJT, Douglas WHBoston: Kluwer Academic; 1999
Magni E, Zhang L, Hickel R SEM and microleakage evaluation of the marginal integrity of two types of class V restorations with or without the use of a light-curable coating material and of polishing. J Dent. 2008; 36:885-891 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2008.07.003
Burke FJ Dental materials – what goes where? The current status of glass ionomer as a material for loadbearing restorations in posterior teeth. Dent Update. 2013; 40:840-844 https://doi.org/10.12968/denu.2013.40.10.840
Scholtanus JD, Huysmans MC Clinical failure of class-II restorations of a highly viscous glass-ionomer material over a 6-year period: a retrospective study. J Dent. 2007; 35:156-162 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2006.07.006
Opdam NJ, van de Sande FH, Bronkhorst E Longevity of posterior composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2014; 93:943-949 https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034514544217
de Gee AJ, van Duinen RN, Werner A, Davidson CL Early and long-term wear of conventional and resin-modified glass ionomers. J Dent Res. 1996; 75:1613-1619 https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345960750081401
Xie D, Brantley WA, Culbertson BM, Wang G Mechanical properties and microstructures of glass-ionomer cements. Dent Mater. 2000; 16:129-138 https://doi.org/10.1016/s0109-5641(99)00093-7
Lohbauer U, Krämer N, Siedschlag G Strength and wear resistance of a dental glass-ionomer cement with a novel nanofilled resin coating. Am J Dent. 2011; 24:124-128
Ilie N, Hickel R, Valceanu AS, Huth KC Fracture toughness of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig. 2012; 16:489-498 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-011-0525-z
Friedl K, Hiller KA, Friedl KH Clinical performance of a new glass ionomer based restoration system: a retrospective cohort study. Dent Mater. 2011; 27:1031-1037
Klinke T, Daboul A, Turek A Clinical performance during 48 months of two current glass ionomer restorative systems with coatings: a randomized clinical trial in the field. Trials. 2016; 17 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1339-8
Gurgan S, Kutuk ZB, Ergin E Four-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a glass ionomer restorative system. Oper Dent. 2015; 40:134-143 https://doi.org/10.2341/13-239-C
Gurgan S, Kutuk ZB, Yalcin Cakir F, Ergin E A randomized controlled 10 years follow up of a glass ionomer restorative material in class I and class II cavities. J Dent. 2020; 94 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2019.07.013
Türkün LS, Kanik Ö A Prospective six-year clinical study evaluating reinforced glass ionomer cements with resin coating on posterior teeth: quo vadis?. Oper Dent. 2016; 41:587-598 https://doi.org/10.2341/15-331-C
Heck K, Frasheri I, Diegritz C Six-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial of two glass ionomer cements in class II cavities. J Dent. 2020; 97 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103333
Poornima P, Koley P, Kenchappa M Comparative evaluation of compressive strength and microhardness of EQUIA Forte, resin modified glass ionomer cement and conventional glass-ionomer cement. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2019; 37:265-270
Yılmaz MN, Gul P, Kiziltunc A Water sorption and solubility of a high viscous glass ionomer cement after the application of different surface coating agents. Eur J Gen Dent. 2022; 9:118-121
Kutuk ZB, Ozturk C, Cakir FY, Gurgan S Mechanical performance of a newly developed glass hybrid restorative in the restoration of large MO Class 2 cavities. Niger J Clin Pract. 2019; 22:833-841 https://doi.org/10.4103/njcp.njcp_628_18
Kielbassa AM, Oehme EP, Shakavets N, Wolgin M In vitro wear of (resin-coated) high-viscosity glass ionomer cements and glass hybrid restorative systems. J Dent. 2021; 105 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103554
Šalinović I, Stunja M, Schauperl Z Mechanical properties of high viscosity glass ionomer and glass hybrid restorative materials. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2019; 53:125-131 https://doi.org/10.15644/asc53/2/4
Miletić I, Baraba A, Basso M Clinical performance of a glass-hybrid system compared with a resin composite in the posterior region: results of a 2-year multicenter study. J Adhes Dent. 2020; 22:235-247 https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a44547
Schwendicke F, Rossi JG, Krois J Cost-effectiveness of glass hybrid versus composite in a multi-country randomized trial. J Dent. 2021; 107 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103614
Gurgan S, Kutuk ZB, Ozturk C Clinical performance of a glass hybrid restorative in extended size class II cavities. Oper Dent. 2020; 45:243-254 https://doi.org/10.2341/18-282-C
Gurgan S, Kutuk Z, Ozturk C 48-month clinical performance of a glass hybrid in extended-size class II cavities. J Dent Res. 2020; 99:(A)
Wafaie RA, Ibrahim Ali A, El-Negoly S-R, Mahmoud SH Five-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of high-viscosity glass ionomer restorative systems in small class II restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2022; 1-18 https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.13000
Hickel R, Roulet JF, Bayne S Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig. 2007; 11:5-33 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-006-0095-7
Hickel R, Peschke A, Tyas M FDI World Dental Federation: clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations-update and clinical examples. Clin Oral Investig. 2010; 14:349-366 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-010-0432-8
Schwendicke F, Müller A, Seifert T Glass hybrid versus composite for non-carious cervical lesions: survival, restoration quality and costs in randomized controlled trial after 3 years. J Dent. 2021; 110 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103689
Mackenzie L Dental amalgam: a practical guide. Dent Update. 2021; 48:607-618
Laske M, Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM Longevity of direct restorations in Dutch dental practices. Descriptive study out of a practice based research network. J Dent. 2016; 46:12-17 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2016.01.002
Burke FJT, Mackenzie L, Shortall ACC Survival rates of resin composite restorations in loadbearing situations in posterior teeth. Dent Update. 2019; 46:523-535
Fifty years of glass ionomers (GICs). Are the latest GICs suitable for restoring back teeth? FJ Trevor Burke Louis Mackenzie Peter Sands Dental Update 2024 50:5, 707-709.
Glass ionomer cements (GICs) have been available for use by clinicians for almost 50 years. Their beneficial properties, such as adhesion to tooth substance, have long been recognized, but early materials suffered from brittleness, lack of translucency, poor wear resistance and solubility in oral fluids. Hence, over the years, new variants have been developed with a view to overcoming these difficulties. If the latest materials were found to be clinically successful in loadbearing situations in posterior teeth, they could hold advantages because of their easier placement than resin composite materials and possibly be more cost-effective. It is therefore the purpose of this article to review recent research into the performance of the laboratory and clinical performance of high viscous GICs and the so-called glass hybrid materials that have developed from the conventional GICs.
CPD/Clinical Relevance: Glass ionomer materials, which, unlike resin composite restorations do not need a separate bonding agent, may hold technique advantages during restoration placement.
Article
It is the aim of this narrative review to (i) briefly trace the history of glass ionomer materials over the 50 years of their existence and (ii) identify and evaluate articles publishing clinical data (of more than 2 years’ duration) on survival of restorations in Class I and II cavities formed in contemporary glass ionomer cement systems.
Glass ionomer materials were first described in a patent in 1969,1 with the first publication being in 1972 by Wilson and Kent.2 They were originally considered to be a development of silicate cement,3 which comprised a fluoro-alumina-silicate (FAS) glass, mixed with phosphoric acid. The mixed material suffered from many deficiencies, especially solubility in oral fluids, so, for the glass ionomer cements (GICs), an aqueous solution of polycarboxylic acid (a carboxylic acid being an organic acid containing one or more -COOH groups) was substituted for the phosphoric acid. When mixed together, a paste was formed that rapidly hardened into a solid mass bound by a polysalt hydrogel (Table 1; Figure 1).
Register now to continue reading
Thank you for visiting Dental Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:
