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).
Acid–base setting reaction
GICs are defined by the acid–base setting reaction between the polyalkenoic acid polymer and the alkaline fluoro-alumino-silicate (FAS) glass.8,9 The polyalkenoic acid polymer could be polyacrylic, polymaleic or polyitaconic acid, or a combination. The reaction is split into three overlapping stages: dissolution; gelation; and maturation (Figure 1).
Clinically, the acid–base reaction begins as soon as the material is mixed. Care must be taken to ensure minimal moisture loss or contamination to prevent the loss of the ions involved in the setting reaction. If water is gained or lost during the setting reaction, this will lead to substantially reduced physical and mechanical properties and, ultimately, premature restoration failure.6
The pH of freshly mixed GICs is reported to be between 0.9 and 210,11 immediately after mixing, rising to pH 2.8–4.310,11 after 10 minutes, and pH 5.4–6.710,11 after 24 hours. Previous laboratory studies suggested a critical pH of 2 (or less) for the setting cement to cause pulp irritation.10 However, the clinical implication of the initial low pH remains controversial because the degree of pulp reaction to setting GIC is dependent on a number of factors, including the following:10,12,13,14
Quantity of free acid available within the setting GIC;
Setting rate and duration;
Existing histological condition of the pulp and the proximity of the GIC material;
Degree of bacterial load in the remaining dentine;
Quality of seal of the final restoration.
Owing to advances in their chemistry compared with older GICs, modern GICs are advocated for use in the restoration of large and deep cavity types, particularly where selective caries removal techniques are used.15,16
Self-adhesive and self-etching properties
Chemical bonding occurs between the GIC and the tooth surface. Adhesion of GIC to dentine (and enamel) occurs in different stages (Figure 2), consisting of surface wetting, self-etching and micromechanical interlocking, true chemical bonding and ion-exchange layer formation.
GIC is hydrophilic and self-etching, therefore, there is initially both surface wetting and surface etching leading to micromechanical interlocking. True chemical bonding occurs where hydrogen bonds rapidly form between the free carboxyl groups (of the polyalkenoic acid) and the water in the tooth surface. Over time, these bonds are replaced by ionic bonds between the polyalkenoic acid polymer and calcium in the hydroxyapatite of the tooth surface, forming an ion-exchange layer.9,17 This ion-exchange layer (reportedly 1–15 μm thick) is a blended interface between the GIC and the underlying dentine, which can take between 1 and 10 days to form18 and only forms in an aqueous environment. Within this ion-exchange layer, there is an exchange of fluoride, calcium, phosphate and other ions between the dentine and GIC,18 with the ionic bonds being capable of dynamically breaking and reforming over the lifetime of the GIC restoration.18
The clinical importance is that GICs adhere chemically to enamel and dentine. In vitro bond strengths have been shown to be similar to both sound dentine and caries-affected dentine.19 Additionally, the initially hydrophilic and acidic properties of GICs result in excellent marginal adaptation at the tooth–restoration interface.20,21 As a result of the ion-exchange layer, the GIC can exhibit antibacterial and bio-interactive properties when placed on carious dentine.18
Measuring bond strengths of GICs to dentine and enamel has been notoriously difficult because GICs tend to fail cohesively, rather than adhesively, and a true comparison with other materials, such as resin composites, may not be possible or appropriate.9,18 However, values for GIC bond strengths have varied from 2.6 to 9.6 MPa (to enamel) and 1.1–4.1 MPa (to dentine), with 80% of the bond strength achieved 15 minutes after GIC placement, and this increases as maturation continues.9,22 Clinical studies have indicated that, depending on the GIC manufacturer, pre-conditioning of dentine improves GIC adhesion and restoration seal 23,24,25 (see section on GIC conditioners).
Antibacterial properties
The initial low pH of GICs may confer antibacterial activity, particularly when placed over caries-affected dentine. Additionally, laboratory testing indicated that freshly mixed or set GIC and mature GIC inhibit the growth of Streptococcus mutans and affect the acidogenicity of the overlying plaque biofilm.26,27 Ions released from GICs, including fluoride, aluminium and strontium, have exhibited antimicrobial effects.28,29,30,31,32 Some studies have suggested that the antibacterial properties of GICs could be related to fluoride release,33 the acidity,33,34 or even zinc.35 Given there are conflicting reports on this matter, the exact mechanism by which fresh and set GIC exhibit antibacterial properties is still not fully understood.34
Bio-interactive properties
The terms ‘bio-active’ and ‘bio-interactive’ describe two different properties for a given dental material. Bio-active dental materials can induce apatite-containing material formation (eg hydroxyapatite) in simulated body fluid, or induce a pulpal response to simulate reparative dentine formation. Bio-interactive dental materials contain and release ions similar to those found within the tooth structure (eg calcium) that can interact with adjacent tooth structure to drive remineralization.36,37,38 GICs therefore belong in the bio-interactive category because of their ability to release calcium and fluoride into the surrounding tooth structure and environment.
Polyalkenoic acids are both ionic and polymeric in nature. Clinically, this is important because GICs are both hydrophilic and acidic, and can interact chemically with dentine and enamel, resulting in chemical adhesion and ion exchange (calcium and fluoride) between the GIC and adjacent tooth structure.17,39 The calcium and fluoride ions found within the GIC can aid in tooth remineralization and provide cariostatic properties that are not observed in conventional resin composites.39
Physical properties
As GICs have been refined, they have been successfully used across a wide range of clinical scenarios, such as the definitive restoration of primary teeth, and stabilization in adults with high caries susceptibility.40 However, in comparison to resin composites, the reduced mechanical properties of GICs have traditionally limited their comprehensive clinical application as definitive long-term restorations, especially as posterior, load-bearing restorations.9,41 Compressive and flexural strength are most commonly used to describe GIC mechanical properties because they have suitable in vitro analogues that allow the replication of typical masticatory loading seen clinically.41 Wear resistance is another requirement in load-bearing scenarios. Conventional GICs have been demonstrated to exhibit lower wear resistance compared with dental amalgam and resin composites; however, their physical and mechanical properties improve as maturation proceeds.42
Aesthetic properties
Aesthetics is a key property that determines the overall clinical success or failure of a tooth-restoration complex. In vitro laboratory studies have found that the colour stability of GICs differs for several reasons, including the additives in the formulation, contamination from extrinsic sources and the storage solution.43,44
Clinical trials have also found good long-term colour stability for GICs. In a 2-year study, EQUIA (GC Corp, Tokyo, Japan) was found to rarely show distinct colour mismatch (less than 1%) in class I and II restorations in permanent teeth.45 This was later confirmed by a series of studies in which EQUIA (GC) exhibited no significant colour match or margin discolouration issues at any recall up to 5 years, with no differences found compared to the hybrid resin composite Gradia Direct Posterior (Dentsply, PA, USA).46,47
GlC classification and presentation
All GICs can be categorized according to how they are formulated, designed, marketed, and sold.
Clinical use
Restorative: GICs for restorative and/or preventive purposes;
Luting: GICs for luting/cementation purposes, both temporary and definitive;
Pulp protection: GICs for the purpose of protecting the pulp floor of cavity preparations, overlying caries-affected or infected dentine.
Delivery systems
GICs are presented with different delivery systems according to their clinical use and formulation, and are available in a powder/liquid combination, either hand-mixed or encapsulated and auto-dispensed. Most manufacturers provide the same GICs with different delivery systems. For example, Fuji IX GP (GC) and Chemfil Rock (Dentsply) are available both as encapsulated and manually mixed powder/liquids. GICs with the same brand name and overall formulation do have subtle differences in the filler:liquid ratio according to their clinical delivery system.5,9
Hand-mixed GICs allow the clinician to control the quantity of final GIC required for their restoration. It is easier to restore a large cavity using a large quantity of hand-mixed GIC compared with using multiple capsules, some of which may not be used in their entirety. However, previous research has indicated that there are large inconsistencies in the mixing ratios of powder/liquid and mixing techniques that can influence the mechanical properties and setting time/handling properties of the GIC.48,49,50,51,52 Pre-dosed encapsulated GICs (powder/liquid) offer the advantage of improved consistency and repeatability of mixing and dispensing.
Conditioners and surface coatings
Some GICs may require the use of a conditioner before placement, and the application of a surface coat after the GIC has been placed, shaped and cured.5
GIC conditioners
GIC tooth conditioners (also known as surface or cavity conditioners) are not the same as acid-etchants used prior to resin composite placement. They differ according to the acid type, strength, and effect on the smear layer.5,9 A smear layer is always created after tooth preparation and contains a mixture of bacteria, necrotic organic tooth tissue, minerals, oils from the dental handpiece and other debris. Over time, this smear layer is susceptible to dissolution under restorations, which encourages microleakage, microbial ingress and possibly pulp inflammation.53
GIC conditioners versus acid etchants
GIC conditioners modify the smear layer and improve adhesion to enamel and dentine. Many manufacturers use polyacrylic acid in their tooth conditioning protocols at different concentrations (10–25%) and for differing times (10–25 s) before being rinsed off with water.5,24,54 As GIC conditioner consists of polyacrylic acid, it is sufficiently acidic to remove the smear layer after rinsing, but, not too acidic to completely remove the smear plugs. The significance of this is that the conditioning helps expose more calcium in the hydroxyapatite enamel/dentine surface, which in turn plays a key role in GIC adhesion.9,55 Using 37% phosphoric acid in a total-etch technique on dentine would remove all remnants of smear layer and plug and decalcify the underlying dentine. This would reduce the number of exposed calcium ions available for GIC ionic bonding, and possibly increase the risk of post-operative sensitivity because the GIC itself is also acidic.24
If the pH of the freshly mixed GIC is sufficiently acidic, then the smear layer will be dissolved/incorporated into the GIC itself, and a GIC conditioner is not required.5,56 This is entirely brand dependent, and clinicians should always check the instructions before using any GIC material to ensure their correct use and placement.
GIC surface coatings
During the setting reaction, GICs are susceptible to excess water loss or gain, which can significantly affect the chemical and mechanical properties of the set material.5,57,58 The concept of surface protection for conventional GICs was first investigated in 1993, using the then-available dental adhesives to investigate their adhesion in vitro.59 As a result, manufacturers may recommend the use of a GIC surface coat after placement to help protect the GIC. These can be of three types:
Emollients can be petroleum- or lipid-based products.57 Solvent-based varnishes are simple solutions of different polymers in solvents that evaporate, leaving behind a layer of polymer on the GIC surface.9 Light-cured resin coatings generally consist of a mixture of methacrylate monomers, photo-initiators, with/without filler particles.9
Comparisons between GIC surface coats have been undertaken primarily in laboratory-based studies studying water loss or gain, or the penetration of dyes into the surface of GIC samples coated with different GIC surface coats. Surface emollients have been reported to have limited success in protecting GICs because they can be easily wiped or washed off. They do, however, offer some protection where no GIC coat is available.57,60 No differences between the protective effects of solvent-based varnishes and light-cured resin-based coats have been reported. All coatings that were tested performed equally well in minimizing dye penetration and preventing water loss, and both types were significantly better than no coating at all.57,61 A previous study indicated that varnishes might peel from the GIC surface and the use of a light-cured resin-based coat may be preferred.62 In 1990, the American Dental Association (ADA) stated the importance of coating conventional GICs with either a varnish or a light-cured resin-based coat to limit water movement during the maturation stage.63
Improved clinical survival rates have been demonstrated for GICs protected with light-cured coats compared with no surface coat.64 However, the mechanism by which this occurs is not fully understood.65,66
Clinical indications
The use of conventional GICs include among others, the definitive restoration of all paediatric cavity types, definitive restoration of adult class III and V restorations, temporary restoration of adult class I and II restorations, core build-ups, endodontic cavity sealing, deep margin elevation/acquisition, and coronal perforation repair (supragingival).
Within paediatric and special care dentistry, GICs can be used for fissure sealing and restorations in patients with limited co-operation, difficulty attaining adequate moisture control or for partially erupted teeth.67
Additionally, while there are no companies whose instructions for use state explicitly that their GIC can be used for class IV restorations, there is no reason that any restorative GIC type could not be used for stabilizing carious lesions in the anterior dentition.
There is controversy, however, regarding the use of any GIC for load-bearing areas in permanent teeth, and whether these restorations are deemed ‘definitive’ or ‘provisional’. Rather than considering them according to their supposed longevity, it would be prudent to describe restorations according to their intended clinical purpose – as ‘stabilizing restorations’. For example, a restoration for caries control and disease stabilization would be any restoration with sufficient chemical and physical properties, and clinical longevity, to allow patients (and clinicians) to control the patient risk factors for caries progression, before re-evaluating and either replacing them or using them as part of the definitive restoration.
A clear distinction is therefore required, and a discussion to be had with the patient, to ensure full understanding and appreciation of the use of GICs. The patient who has undergone a phased, personalized care plan will therefore have already been informed of the initial stabilization of disease, followed by a review, and if required, definitive restorative treatment.
Clinical placement of GICs: technical considerations
The decision to use GIC must be considered before any cavity preparation is undertaken. The decision is made together with the patient with the understanding of why the material is being used and what will most likely be required in the future, ie GIC removal and replacement, or cut-back and overlaying with a more durable material such as resin composite.
Cavity preparation and caries management must be carried out using minimally invasive techniques to ensure full use of the benefits of the GIC material, improved clinical longevity and tooth-restoration complex survival. Because the material is moisture tolerant to a degree, the use of rubber dam isolation is not mandatory, but is recommended to improve placement owing to the rubber dam's soft tissue control and cavity field isolation.
The use of a proprietary GIC cavity conditioner and GIC coat is dependent on the GIC being used and its initial pH. Because this information is often not readily available, it is recommended that a conditioning step is included in most cases, using a proprietary mild concentration polyacrylic acid (10–25%) for 10–15 seconds on enamel and dentine. This should be thoroughly washed off and the tissue gently air dried to ensure obvious water droplets are removed from the tooth surface prior to GIC placement.
Another important consideration is when to finish the GIC surface after placement. Clearly, gross material excess whether occlusal, approximal, or otherwise, must be removed with a sharp instrument to ensure conformity to the existing occlusion and aid patient oral hygiene. The finishing of GICs must only be carried 24 hours (minimum) after placement to avoid dehydration and loss of water from the maturing GIC.68
Figure 3 provides an overview of the ideal GIC placement for a small class II approximal restoration, and the relevant clinical steps clinicians should consider. Each clinical scenario must be considered on an individual basis and manufacturers' guidelines followed.
Conclusion
GICs are a highly versatile bio-interactive restorative material available with different delivery methods and can be used for many clinical purposes. The key to the successful use of GICs is in the understanding of their chemistry, their limitations and the intended clinical purpose.