Wilson A. Alumino-silicate polyacrylic acid and related cements. Br Polym J. 1974; 6:165-179
Wilson A, Kent B. The glass-ionomer cement, a new translucent cement for dentistry. J Appl Chem Biotechnol. 1971; 21
Watson TF, Atmeh AR, Sajini S Present and future of glass-ionomers and calcium-silicate cements as bioactive materials in dentistry: biophotonics-based interfacial analyses in health and disease. Dent Mater. 2014; 30:50-61
Burke FJT. 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
Francois P, Fouquet V, Attal JP, Dursun E. Commercially available fluoride-releasing restorative materials: a review and a proposal for classification. Materials (Basel). 2020; 13 https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13102313
Banerjee A. The role of glass-ionomer cements in minimum intervention (MI) caries management. In: Sidhu SK (ed). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2016
Gautam E, Somani R, Jaidka S, Hussain S. A comparative evaluation of compressive strength and antimicrobial efficacy of Fuji IX and Amalgomer CR: an in vitro study. J Oral Biol Craniofacial Res. 2020; 10:118-121
Nicholson JW. Chemistry of glass-ionomer cements: a review. Biomaterials. 1998; 19:485-494
Sidhu S, Nicholson J. A review of glass-ionomer cements for clinical dentistry. J Funct Biomater. 2016; 7
Smith DC, Ruse ND. Acidity of glass ionomer cements during setting and its relation to pulp sensitivity. J Am Dent Assoc. 1986; 112:654-657
Wasson EA, Nicholson JW. Change in pH during setting of polyelectrolyte dental cements. J Dent. 1993; 21:122-126
Tarim B, Hafez AA, Cox CF. Material on nonexposed and exposed monkey pulps. Quintessence Int (Berl). 1998; 29:535-542
Modena KC da S, Casas-Apayco LC, Atta MT Cytotoxicity and biocompatibility of direct and indirect pulp capping materials. J Appl Oral Sci. 2009; 17:544-554
Duncan HF, Galler KM, Tomson PL European Society of Endodontology position statement: management of deep caries and the exposed pulp. Int Endod J. 2019; 52:923-934
Innes NPT, Frencken JE, Bjørndal L Managing carious lesions: consensus recommendations on terminology. Adv Dent Res. 2016; 28:49-57
Nicholson JW. Adhesion of glass-ionomer cements to teeth: a review. Int J Adhes Adhes. 2016; 69:33-38
Mustafa HA, Paris S. Forgotten merits of GIC restorations. Clin Oral Investig. 2020; 24:2189-2201
Tjäderhane L, Tezvergil-Mutluay A. Performance of adhesives and restorative materials after selective removal of carious lesions: restorative materials with anticaries properties. Dent Clin North Am. 2019; 63:715-729
Ebaya MM, Ali AI, Mahmoud SH. Evaluation of marginal adaptation and microleakage of three glass ionomer-based Class V restorations: in vitro study. Eur J Dent. 2019; 13:599-606
Gjorgievska E, Nicholson JW, Iljovska S, Slipper IJ. Marginal adaptation and performance of bioactive dental restorative materials in deciduous and young permanent teeth. J Appl Oral Sci. 2008; 16:1-6
Powis DR, Folleras T, Merson SA, Wilson AD. Improved adhesion of a glass ionomer cement to dentin and enamel. J Dent Res. 1982; 61:1416-1422
Tyas MJ. Milestones in adhesion: glass-ionomer cements. J Adhes Dent. 2003; 5:259-266
Tay FR, Smales RJ, Ngo H Effect of different conditioning protocols on adhesion of a GIC to dentin. J Adhes Dent. 2001; 3:153-167
Rai N, Naik R, Gupta R Evaluating the effect of different conditioning agents on the shear bond strength of resin-modified glass ionomers. Contemp Clin Dent. 2017; 8:604-612
Davidovich E, Weiss E, Fuks AB, Beyth N. Surface antibacterial properties of glass ionomer cements used in atraumatic restorative treatment. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007; 138:1347-1352
Klai S, Altenburger M, Spitzmüller B Antimicrobial effects of dental luting glass ionomer cements on Streptococcus mutans. Sci World J. 2014; 2014 https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/807086
Cosgun A, Bolgul B, Duran N. In vitro investigation of antimicrobial effects, nanohardness, and cytotoxicity of different glass ionomer restorative materials in dentistry. Niger J Clin Pract. 2019; 22:422-431
Park EY, Kang S. Current aspects and prospects of glass ionomer cements for clinical dentistry. Yeungnam Univ J Med. 2020; 37:169-178
Nicholson JW, Czarnecka B, Limanowska-Shaw H. The long-term interaction of dental cements with lactic acid solutions. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 1999; 10:449-452
Geurtsen W. Substances released from dental resin composites and glass ionomer cements. Eur J Oral Sci. 1998; 106:687-695
Tüzüner T, Dimkov A, Nicholson JW. The effect of antimicrobial additives on the properties of dental glass-ionomer cements: a review. Acta Biomater Odontol Scand. 2019; 5:9-21
Seppa L, Forss H, Ogaard B. The effect of fluoride application on fluoride release and antibacterial action of glass ionomers. J Dent Res. 1993; 72:1210-1314
Sidhu SK, Schmalz G. The biocompatibility of glass-ionomer cement materials. A status report for the American Journal of Dentistry. Am J Dent. 2001; 14:387-396
Tobias RS, Browne RM, Wilson CA. Antibacterial activity of dental restorative materials. Int Endod J. 1985; 18:1671-171
Gandolfi MG, Siboni F, Botero T Calcium silicate and calcium hydroxide materials for pulp capping: biointeractivity, porosity, solubility and bioactivity of current formulations. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater. 2015; 13:1-18
Li X, Wang J, Joiner A, Chang J. The remineralisation of enamel: a review of the literature. J Dent. 2014; 42:S12-S20
Tomson PL, Lumley PJ, Smith AJ, Cooper PR. Growth factor release from dentine matrix by pulp-capping agents promotes pulp tissue repair-associated events. Int Endod J. 2017; 50:281-292
Mickenautsch S, Mount G, Yengopal V. Therapeutic effect of glass-ionomers: an overview of evidence. Aust Dent J. 2011; 56:10-15
Birant S, Ozcan H, Koruyucu M, Seymen F. Assessment of the compressive strength of the current restorative materials. Pediatr Dent J. 2021; 31:80-85
Lohbauer U. Dental glass ionomer cements as permanent filling materials? Properties, limitations and future trends. Materials (Basel). 2010; 3:76-96
De Gee AJ, Van Duinen RNB, Werner A, Davidson CL. Early and long-term wear of conventional and resin-modified glass ionomers. J Dent Res. 1996; 75:1613-1619
Savas S, Colgecen O, Yasa B, Kucukyilmaz E. Color stability, roughness, and water sorption/solubility of glass ionomer-based restorative materials. Niger J Clin Pract. 2019; 22:824-832
Pani SC, Aljammaz MT, Alrugi AM Color stability of glass ionomer cement after reinforced with two different nanoparticles. Int J Dent. 2020; 2020 https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/7808535
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
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
Gurgan S, Kutuk ZB, Ergin E Clinical performance of a glass ionomer restorative system: a 6-year evaluation. Clin Oral Investig. 2017; 21:2335-2343
Freitas MCC de A, Fagundes TC, Modena KC da S Randomized clinical trial of encapsulated and hand-mixed glassionomer ART restorations: one-year follow-up. J Appl Oral Sci. 2018; 26:1-8
Al-Taee L, Deb S, Banerjee A. An in vitro assessment of the physical properties of manually-mixed and encapsulated glass-ionomer cements. BDJ Open. 2020; 6:1-7
Akatsuka R, Fukushima S, Sasaki K. Effect of mixing methods on bonding strength of GIC. J Dent Res. 2012; 91
Nomoto R, Komoriyama M, McCabe JF, Hirano S. Effect of mixing method on the porosity of encapsulated glass ionomer cement. Dent Mater. 2004; 20:972-978
Oliveira GL, Carvalho CN, Carvalho EM The influence of mixing methods on the compressive strength and fluoride release of conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cements. Int J Dent. 2019; 2019 https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/6834931
Pashley DH. Smear layer: overview of structure and function. Proc Finnish Dent Soc. 1992; 88:215-224
Hoshika S, Ting S, Ahmed Z Effect of conditioning and 1 year aging on the bond strength and interfacial morphology of glass-ionomer cement bonded to dentin. Dent Mater. 2021; 37:106-112
Alhalawani AMF, Curran DJ, Boyd D, Towler MR. The role of poly(acrylic acid) in conventional glass polyalkenoate cements. J Polym Eng. 2016; 36:221-237
Hasan AMHR, Sidhu SK, Nicholson JW. Fluoride release and uptake in enhanced bioactivity glass ionomer cement (‘glass carbomerTM’) compared with conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cements. J Appl Oral Sci. 2019; 27:1-6
Tyagi S, Thomas AM, Sinnappah-Kang ND. A comparative evaluation of resin- and varnish-based surface protective agents on glass ionomer cement – a spectrophotometric analysis. Biomater Investig Dent. 2020; 7:25-30
Causton BE. The physico-mechanical consequences of exposing glass ionomer cements to water during setting. Biomaterials. 1981; 2:112-115
Watson T, Banerjee A. Effectiveness of glass-ionomer surface protection treatments: a scanning optical microscope study. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 1993; 2:85-90
Faridi MA, Khabeer A, Haroon S. flexural strength of glass carbomer cement and conventional glass ionomer cement stored in different storage media over time. Med Princ Pract. 2018; 27:372-377
Nicholson JW, Czarnecka B. Kinetic studies of the effect of varnish on water loss by glass-ionomer cements. Dent Mater. 2007; 23:1549-1552
Hotta M, Hirukawa H, Yamamoto K. Effect of coating materials on restorative glass-ionomer cement surface. Oper Dent. 1992; 17:57-61
Using glass ionomers. Council on Dental Materials, Instruments, and Equipment. J Am Dent Assoc. 1990; 121:181-188
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; 17:1-14
Bonifácio CC, Werner A, Kleverlaan CJ. Coating glass-ionomer cements with a nanofilled resin. Acta Odontol Scand. 2012; 70:471-477
Funduk N. Effect of surface coating on water migration into resin-modified glass ionomer cements: A magnetic resonance micro-imaging study. Magn Reson Med. 2000; 44:686-691
Gorseta K, Glavina D, Borzabadi-Farahani A One-year clinical evaluation of a glass carbomer fissure sealant, a preliminary study. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2014; 22:67-71
Miličević A, Goršeta K, Van Duinen RNV, Glavina D. Surface roughness of glass ionomer cements after application of different polishing techniques. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2018; 52:314-321
Professor of Cariology & Operative Dentistry, Hon Consultant in Restorative Dentistry, King's College London Dental Institute at Guy's Hospital, KCL, King's Health Partners, London, UK
Glass-polyalkenoate cements, also known as glass-ionomer cements (GICs), are one of the most commonly used bio-interactive restorative dental materials, having been available since the 1970s. With the promotion of minimally invasive operative dentistry (MID), and the reduction in the use of dental amalgam worldwide, the popularity of these materials has grown significantly in recent years. This article outlines the basics and clinical importance of GIC material science, and provides an overview of their use in restorative dentistry.
CPD/Clinical Relevance: GICs are versatile dental biomaterials that require correct case selection, material handling and placement technique to ensure optimal clinical success.
Article
Glass-polyalkenoate cements, also known as glass-ionomer cements (GICs), were invented in the UK by Wilson and Kent in 1965, and commercially introduced in 1972 as ASPA (alumino-silicate polyacrylic acid) cements.1,2 All GICs consist of the same generic formulation of a polymeric acid, from the polyalkenoate acid family of polymer acids, and an alkaline glass powder, and are defined by this acid–base setting reaction. However, by altering the polymeric acids, alkaline glasses, or by adding different components, different types of modified GICs with significantly different properties related to their proposed clinical use have been created.3,4
GICs are self-adhesive, self-curing, possess fluoride uptake and release properties, can interact with adjacent enamel and dentine resulting in exchange of ions, and exhibit cariostatic properties.5,6 GICs do not require specific tooth preparation or modifications, such as acid-etching or bonding steps that are needed for resin-based composites, but their physical and mechanical properties are generally weaker when compared with resin composites.5,7 The ionic interaction of GICs with adjacent dentine is not as active as that of calcium silicate cements such as mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) or Biodentine (Septodont, Saint-Maur-des-Fossés, France).
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:
