SciDoc Publishers | Open Access | Science Journals | Media Partners


s
International Journal of Dentistry and Oral Science (IJDOS)  /  IJDOS-2377-8075-08-8013

Comparative Evaluation of Compressive and Tensile Strength for Glass Ionomer Cement and Cention-N


Vijayapriyangha Senthilkumar1, Sindhu Ramesh2*, Chandana Subbarao3

1 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, Chennai, India.
2 Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Clinical Genetics Lab, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, Chennai - 600077, India.
3 Reader, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Clinical Genetics Lab, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, Chennai - 600077, India.


*Corresponding Author

Sindhu Ramesh,
Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Clinical Genetics Lab, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, Chennai - 600077, India.
Tel: 9840136543
E-mail: sindhuramesh@saveetha.com

Received: May 04, 2021; Accepted: July 29, 2021; Published: August 02, 2021

Citation:Vijayapriyangha Senthilkumar, Sindhu Ramesh, Chandana Subbarao. Comparative Evaluation of Compressive and Tensile Strength for Glass Ionomer Cement and Cention-N. Int J Dentistry Oral Sci. 2021;8(8):3633-3637. doi: dx.doi.org/10.19070/2377-8075-21000743

Copyright: Sindhu Ramesh©2021. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.



Abstract

Introduction: The atraumatic restorative technique is considered to be effective in conserving the remaining tooth structure. In that aspect , various materials like nanofilled glass ionomer cement (GIC), composites are used [1-3]. On comparing the compressive strength and tensile strength , till now glass ionomer cement and amalgam is considered to be the best. The aim of the study is to compare the compressive and tensile strength of new alkasite based filling material. Materials and Methods: Teflon mold of about 20 mm height and 10mm diameter of each group were prepared for two groups, cention-N and GIC , for evaluation of compressive strength. And the samples of about 50mm length and 5mm width were made. Samples were stored in distilled water and evaluated for compressive strength and tensile strength. Results: Statistical analysis was done with independent tests and results were tabulated.



1.Keywords
2.Introduction
6.Conclusion
8.References


Keywords

Alkasite; Filling Material; Compressive Strength; Tensile Strength; Cention-N.


Introduction

Atraumatic restorative technique (ART) is a minimally invasive approach where the caries is removed only with the help of hand instruments. It is useful in conserving the remaining healthy tissues, without removing the caries with anesthesia ,electrically driven equipment. The restoration is done with the adhesive tooth restorative materials like GIC, composite, compomer etc [4-6]. Various restorative materials are used because of their good physical and chemical properties. The materials like amalgam and GIC are still believed to be best materials because of their compressive and tensile strength.

With the introduction of the new alkasite based restorative material, it is believed that the material Cention-N will replace amalgam and GIC in future. It's the right time for us to shift to new alkasite based materials. Previously our team has a rich experience in working on various research projects across multiple disciplines [7-21]. Now the growing trend in this area motivated us to pursue this project.

Alkaline filler increases the release of hydroxide ions to regulate the PH value during acid attacks. So, the demineralisation can be prevented . Release of large numbers of fluoride and calcium ions forms a sound basis for the remineralisation of dentin. The aim of this study is to compare the compressive and tensile strength of new alkasite based filling material.


Materials and Methods

Toras FM et al study, compared the microhardness, compressive and tensile strength of nano filled GIC, conventional GIC , resin modified GIC [22-24]. The materials used in this study were conventional restorative glass ionomer cement.

(Restore Glass, d-tech, India) and self curing alkasite filling material (Cention-N, Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein).

Compressive strength testing

Group 1 - Cention-N -6 samples

Group 2 – Glass ionomer cement –6 samples

Teflon mold of about 20mm height and 10mm diameter were made ,6 samples in each group . The samples were stored in distilled water for 48 hours. Then the samples were evaluated for compressive strength in a universal testing machine(INSTRON,3382). Each specimen was placed on the flat surface of between the plates of the testing machine and the load was applied . The maximum load at which the fracture of the specimen occurred was recorded in (N) and the compressive strength of each specimen was noted in terms of MPa.

Tensile strength testing

Group 1 – Cention-N – 5 samples

Group 2 – Glass ionomer cement – 5 samples

The samples were made in strips of length 50mm,width 5mm and depth 2mm. Five samples were made in each group and the samples were stored in distilled water for 48 hours(Figure 1&2). Then the specimens were estimated for tensile strength in a universal testing machine, with the crosshead speed of 50mm/min until fracture. The tensile strength was noted in terms of MPa(Figure 3)


Results And Discussion

Data were collected, tabulated and subjected to statistical analysis using SPSS program(Table 1-4). The statistical analysis was done using an independent t test. The level of significance is considered at P< 0.05(Table 2&4).

Our institution is passionate about high quality evidence based research and has excelled in various fields [11, 25-34]. The results showed that the mean compressive strength is more in group 1 (1.5083 + 0.26) when compared to group 2 ( 0.2536+ .024) (Table 4). There is a significant difference in tensile strength of group 1 (7.9952 + 3.09) (Table 2) ,when compared to group 2 (1.1326 + 0.98142). Thus this study results showed that cention- N is more significant than GIC when comparing the compressive strength and tensile strength.

Atraumatic restorative technique is considered to be less traumatic when compared with conventional techniques with rotary instruments [35-39]. Glass ionomer cement is based on the class of materials known as acid-base cements [40]. Based on the product of reaction of powdered glasses of basic character with weak polymeric acids [41], in the earliest publication ,the term ‘glassionomer’ was applied to them [42]. In the ART technique, the glass ionomers were used for restoration [39-43]. In the setting of glass ionomers, the overall reaction takes place in two steps in a diffusion- controlled process [44]. Highest compressive strength is seen in glass ionomers containing 3 wt% of fluoro apatite nanoparticles [23]. Properties of glass ionomer cement are influenced by the concentration of the polyacid, powder liquid ratio, age of the specimen and particle size of glass powder [40]. The main advantage of glass ionomer cement is fluoride release, for a longer period of time by initial rapid release and lower level diffusion based release [2, 45].

The addition of bioactive glass to the glass ionomer improved the biocompatibility of glass ionomer to fibroblasts [46]. The quality of glass ionomer increases with time and adhesion of glass ionomer to tooth structure is not technique sensitive [47].

Glass ionomer and amalgam have been used as a filling material , even though there is a high demand for other new alternative material because of few disadvantages [48]. There are few disadvantages of glass ionomers like low resistance to abrasion and wear , lack of strength,low flexural strength, very brittle and prone to bulk fracture [49]. Dental amalgam also has disadvantages like unaesthetic , mercury toxicity , mercury vapour release etc [50].

Cention-N belongs to the material group of Alkasites and it is a tooth colored filling material. During acid attacks, the alkaline filler increases the release of hydroxide ions to regulate the PH. The release of fluoride and calcium ions help in remineralization of dental enamel. The initiator system enables good chemical selfcuring [51].

Few of the filler content of this material such as barium aluminium silicate glass , calcium barium aluminium fluorosilicate glass and calcium fluoro silicate glass are responsible for the strength and fluoride calcium ion release during acid attacks. Advantages of this material are, stronger than glass ionomer cement , more esthetic than amalgam and glass ionomer cement. It is indicated in class 1, class 2 cavity. This material can be used in two ways either with optional light curing with 400-500 nm, with or without an adhesive. For atraumatic restorative technique , it can be used with adhesive.

Toras FM et al study stated that the GC Fuji II LC have the highest diametral tensile and compressive strength values when compared with nano filled glass ionomer and conventional glass ionomer cement [23]. Sri chandana et al study stated that when conventional glass ionomers are added with antibiotics ,the compressive strength is decreased [52]. McCabe et al study stated that the glass ionomer cements can be mechanically evaluated by compressive strength [53].

Mallmann et al study stated that compressive strength is higher in larger specimens of resin modified glass ionomer cement[54]. Garcia et al said that the type of nano filled particle influences the compressive strength [55]. Higher diametral tensile strength is seen in nano filled GIC than conventional GIC while resin modified GIC is scored better than both nano filled and conventional materials [56]. Cention-N is found to have least microleakage when compared with flowable composite and GIC [57].



Figure 1. Group 1- Cention-N.



Figure 2. Group 2- Glass ionomer cement.



Figure 3. Evaluation of tensile strength in universal testing machine.



Table 1. Comparative results of tensile strength between the groups.



Table 2. Statistical analysis of Tensile strength.



Table 3. Compressive strength analysis - T-Test.



Table 4. Compressive strength statistical analysis- Independent samples test.


Conclusion

Within the limitations of the study, the cention showed better compressive and tensile strength. Hence cention -N can be used as an restorative material for better clinical outcome and longevity of the restoration.


References

  1. Poorni S, Srinivasan MR, Nivedhitha MS. Probiotic Streptococcus strains in caries prevention: A systematic review. J Conserv Dent. 2019 Mar;22(2):123- 8.
  2. Marroquín BB, Fernández CC, Schmidtmann I, Willershausen B, Goldberg F. Accuracy of electronic apex locators to detect root canal perforations with inserted metallic posts: an ex vivo study. Head Face Med. 2014 Dec 23;10:57.Pubmed PMID: 25533476.
  3. Jenarthanan S, Subbarao C. Comparative evaluation of the efficacy of diclofenac sodium administered using different delivery routes in the management of endodontic pain: A randomized controlled clinical trial. J Conserv Dent. 2018 May-Jun;21(3):297-301.Pubmed PMID: 29899633.
  4. Nazari Moghaddam K, Nazari S, Shakeri L, Honardar K, Mirmotalebi F. In vitro detection of simulated apical root perforation with two electronic apex locators. Iran Endod J. 2010 Winter;5(1):23-6.Pubmed PMID: 23130025.
  5. Nasiri K, Wrbas KT. Comparing the accuracy of two electronic apex locators in the determination of working length and the detection of root perforations: An in vitro study. Dent. 2019;5:1-5.
  6. Rajendran R, Kunjusankaran RN, Sandhya R, Anilkumar A, Santhosh R, Patil SR. Comparative evaluation of remineralizing potential of a paste containing bioactive glass and a topical cream containing casein phosphopeptide- amorphous calcium phosphate: An in vitro study. Pesqui Bras Odontopediatria Clin Integr. 2019 Oct 10;19:1-10.
  7. Nandakumar M, Nasim I. Comparative evaluation of grape seed and cranberry extracts in preventing enamel erosion: An optical emission spectrometric analysis. J Conserv Dent. 2018 Sep-Oct;21(5):516-520.Pubmed PMID: 30294113.
  8. Malli Sureshbabu N, Selvarasu K, V JK, Nandakumar M, Selvam D. Concentrated Growth Factors as an Ingenious Biomaterial in Regeneration of Dent. 2019 Jan 22;2019:7046203.Pubmed PMID: 30805222.
  9. Kaufman AY, Fuss Z, Keila S, Waxenberg S. Reliability of different electronic apex locators to detect root perforations in vitro. Int Endod J. 1997 Nov;30(6):403-7.
  10. Govindaraju L, Neelakantan P, Gutmann JL. Effect of root canal irrigating solutions on the compressive strength of tricalcium silicate cements. Clin Oral Investig. 2017 Mar;21(2):567-571.Pubmed PMID: 27469101.
  11. Wolf TG, Krauß-Mironjuk A, Wierichs RJ, Briseño-Marroquín B. Influence of embedding media on the accuracy of working length determination by means of apex locator: an ex vivo study. Sci Rep. 2021 Feb 8;11(1):3340. Pubmed PMID: 33558636.
  12. Rajakeerthi R, Nivedhitha MS. Natural Product as the Storage medium for an avulsed tooth–A Systematic Review. Cumhur. Dent. J. 2019 Jun 11;22(2):249-56.
  13. Aguiar BA, Reinaldo RS, Frota LM, do Vale MS, de Vasconcelos BC. Root ZX Electronic Foramen Locator: An Ex Vivo Study of Its Three Models' Precision and Reproducibility. Int J Dent. 2017;2017:1-4.Pubmed PMID: 28367215.
  14. Saraf PA, Ratnakar P, Patil TN, Penukonda R, Kamatagi L, Vanaki SS. A comparative clinical evaluation of accuracy of six apex locators with intraoral periapical radiograph in multirooted teeth: An in vivo study. J Conserv Dent. 2017 Jul-Aug;20(4):264-268.Pubmed PMID: 29259365.
  15. . Taneja S, Kumar M, Sharma SS, Gogia H. Comparative evaluation of accuracy of three electronic apex locators in different simulated clinical conditions- an invitro study. Ann Med Health Sci Res. 2017;7(3).
  16. Manohar MP, Sharma S. A survey of the knowledge, attitude, and awareness about the principal choice of intracanal medicaments among the general dental practitioners and nonendodontic specialists. Indian J Dent Res. 2018 Nov-Dec;29(6):716-720.Pubmed PMID: 30588997.
  17. Estrela C, Decurcio DD, Rossi-Fedele G, Silva JA, Guedes OA, Borges ÁH. Root perforations: a review of diagnosis, prognosis and materials. Brazilian oral research. 2018 Oct 18;32(suppl 1):e73.
  18. Hegde M, Varghese L, Malhotra S. Tooth root perforation repair–A review. oral health dent. manag. 2017;16(2):1-4.
  19. Siddique R, Sureshbabu NM, Somasundaram J, Jacob B, Selvam D. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of precipitate formation following interaction of chlorhexidine with sodium hypochlorite, neem, and tulsi. J Conserv Dent. 2019 Jan-Feb;22(1):40-47.Pubmed PMID: 30820081.
  20. Janani K, Sandhya R. A survey on skills for cone beam computed tomography interpretation among endodontists for endodontic treatment procedure. Indian J Dent Res. 2019 Nov-Dec;30(6):834-838.Pubmed PMID: 31939356.
  21. Saed SM, Ashley MP, Darcey J. Root perforations: aetiology, management strategies and outcomes. The hole truth. Br Dent J. 2016 Feb;220(4):171- 180.
  22. Aidasani GL, Mulay S. Management of iatrogenic errors: Furcal perforation. J Int Clin Dent Res Organ. 2018 Jan 1;10(1):42.
  23. Teja KV, Ramesh S, Priya V. Regulation of matrix metalloproteinase-3 gene expression in inflammation: A molecular study. J Conserv Dent. 2018 Nov;21(6):592-6.
  24. Siddique R, Nivedhitha MS. Effectiveness of rotary and reciprocating systems on microbial reduction: A systematic review. J Conserv Dent. 2019 Mar;22(2):114-22.
  25. Muthu MS, Sivakumar N. Accuracy of electronic apex locator in length determination in the presence of different irrigants: An in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2006 Oct 1;24(4):182.
  26. Connert T, Judenhofer MS, Hülber-J M, Schell S, Mannheim JG, Pichler BJ, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of nine electronic apex locators by using Micro-CT. Int Endod J. 2018 Feb;51(2):223-232.Pubmed PMID: 28675449.
  27. Azeem RA, Sureshbabu NM. Clinical performance of direct versus indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth: A systematic review. J Conserv Dent. 2018 Jan;21(1):2-9.
  28. Khandelwal A, Palanivelu A. Correlation between dental caries and salivary albumin in adult population in Chennai: An in vivo study. Braz. Dent. Sci. 2019 Apr 30;22(2):228-33.
  29. . Ferreira I, Braga AC, Pina-Vaz I. The Precision of Propex Pixi with Different Instruments and Coronal Preflaring Procedures. Eur Endod J. 2019 Jul 10;4(2):75-79.Pubmed PMID: 32161891.
  30. Ramarao S, Sathyanarayanan U. CRA Grid - A preliminary development and calibration of a paper-based objectivization of caries risk assessment in undergraduate dental education. J Conserv Dent. 2019 Mar-Apr;22(2):185-190. Pubmed PMID: 31142991.

         Indexed in

pubhub  CGS  indexcoop  
j-gate  DOAJ  Google_Scholar_logo

       Total Visitors

SciDoc Counter

Get in Touch

SciDoc Publishers
16192 Coastal Highway
Lewes, Delaware 19958
Tel :+1-(302)-703-1005
Fax :+1-(302)-351-7355
Email: contact.scidoc@scidoc.org


porn