Histopathological pulp response to nano zirconia versus nano clay modified glass ionomers: An experimental study
Source abstract
Abstract
In a purpose to invent a new biomaterial which has good mechanical, physical and optical properties, many investigations are done nowadays to explore the behavior of new combinations. Twelve young healthy adult dogs, of comparable age, 1–1.5 years old, and complete set of permanent dentitions were used in the study on three quadrants forming a sum of one hundred eight sound teeth. Materials were divided to (M1) conventional glass ionomer (Midifill), (M2) which was restored with Nanoclay modified glass ionomer (Dellite 43B montmorillonite) and third group (M3) which was restored with nanozirconia modified glass ionomer (Zirconomer Improved). After preplanned observation periods, dogs were euthanized, and teeth were prepared for histopathological assessment. Statistical analysis was performed. The results revealed that Nanoclay cements showed the best histopathological effects over the conventional glass ionomer and Zirconomer. Modified glass ionomer with addition of recent nanoparticles which improved histopathological properties and revealed good pulpal response.Graphical abstract
Source: expertdata · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Bone Tissue Engineering Materials · Facial Trauma and Fracture Management · Endodontics and Root Canal Treatments
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (51)
Show source-provided references
1. D. Wilson, E. Kent, A new translucent cement for dentistry. The glass ionomer cement. Br. Dent. J. 132, 133–5 (1972). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.480281010.1038/sj.bdj.4802810 ↗
2. M. Elsawy, I. Barakaty, T. El Mansy, M. Masoud, Evaluation of zirconia infused glass ionomer cement versus resin modified glass ionomer in class II restorations of primary molars. Al-Azhar J. Dent. Sci. 24(1), 85–91 (2021). https://doi.org/10.21608/AJDSM.2021.34151.107310.21608/AJDSM.2021.34151.1073 ↗
3. P. Croll, W. Nicholson, Glass ionomer cements in pediatric dentistry: review of the literature. Pediatr. Dent. 24, 423–429 (2002)
4. G. Yadav, U. Rehani, V. Rana, A comparative evaluation of marginal leakage of different restorative materials in deciduous molars: an in vitro study. Int. J. Clin. Pediatr. Dent. 5, 101–107 (2012). https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-114510.5005/jp-journals-10005-1145 ↗
5. Y. Cho, C. Cheng, A review of glass ionomer restorations in the primary dentition. J. Can. Dent. Assoc. 65, 491–495 (1999)
6. X. Yang, L. Li, Y. Nishiyama, M.S. Reid, L.A. Berglund, Processing strategy for reduced energy demand of nanostructured CNF/clay composites with tailored interfaces. Carbohydr. Polym. 312, 120788 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2023.12078810.1016/j.carbpol.2023.120788 ↗
7. Y.W. Gu, A.U.J. Yap, P. Cheang, K. Khor, Zirconia-glass ionomer cement—a potential substitute for Miracle Mix. Scr. Mater. 52, 113–116 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scriptamat.2004.09.01910.1016/j.scriptamat.2004.09.019 ↗
8. M.M. Abdelaziz, M.A. Niazy, H.M. Taher, The effect of pH cycling on surface microhardness and fluoride release of two modified nanoclay glass ionomer restorations in class V cavities. Al-Azhar Dent. J. Girls 7(4 October-Restorative Dentistry issue (Removable Prosthodontics, Fixed Prosthodontics, Endodontics, Dental Biomaterials, Operative Dentistry)), 511–520 (2020). https://doi.org/10.21608/ADJG.2020.13538.116310.21608/ADJG.2020.13538.1163 ↗
9. S. Fu, Z. Sun, P. Huang, Y. Li, N. Hu, Some basic aspects of polymer nanocomposites: a critical review. Nano Mater. Sci. 1(1), 2–30 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nanoms.2019.02.00610.1016/j.nanoms.2019.02.006 ↗
10. K.Y. Perera, M. Hopkins, A.K. Jaiswal, S. Jaiswal, Nanoclays-containing bio-based packaging materials: properties, applications, safety, and regulatory issues. J. Nanostruct. Chem. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40097-023-00525-510.1007/s40097-023-00525-5 ↗
11. R.K. Deshmukh, L. Hakim, K. Akhila et al., Nano clays and its composites for food packaging applications. Int. Nano Lett. 13, 131–153 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40089-022-00388-810.1007/s40089-022-00388-8 ↗
12. G. Lazzara, F. Bruno, D. Brancato, V. Sturiale, A.G. D’Amico, S. Miloto, P. Pasbakhsh, V. D’Agata, S. Saccone, C. Federico, Biocompatibility analysis of halloysite clay nanotubes. Mater. Lett. 336, 133852 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2023.13385210.1016/j.matlet.2023.133852 ↗
13. N. Abdulsamee, A.H. Elkhadem, Zirconomer and zirconomer improved (white amalgams): restorative materials for the future. Review. EC Dent. Sci. 15, 134–150 (2017)
14. H. Semyari, M. Sattari, M. Atai, M. Pournasir, The effect of nanozirconia mixed with glass-ionomer on proliferation of epithelial cells and adhesive molecules. J. Periodontol. Implant Dent. (2011). https://doi.org/10.5681/jpid.2011.01210.5681/jpid.2011.012 ↗
15. M.A. Fareed, A. Stamboulis, Nanoclays reinforced glass ionomer cements: dispersion and interaction of polymer grade (PG) montmorillonite with poly(acrylic acid). J. Mater. Sci.: Mater. Med. 25, 91–99 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-013-5058-310.1007/s10856-013-5058-3 ↗
16. H.S. Ching, N. Luddin, T.P. Kannan, I. Ab Rahman, N.R.N. Abdul Ghani, Modification of glass ionomer cements on their physical-mechanical and antimicrobial properties. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 30, 557–571 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.1241310.1111/jerd.12413 ↗
17. M. Spinola, A.M.O. Dal Piva, P.U. Barbosa, C.R.G. Torres, E. Bresciani, Mechanical assessment of glass ionomer cements incorporated with multi-walled carbon nanotubes for dental applications. Oral 1, 190–198 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/oral103001910.3390/oral1030019 ↗
18. S.C. Pani, M.T. Aljammaz, A.M. Alrugi, A.M. Aljumaah, Y.M. Alkahtani, A. AlKhuraif, Color stability of glass ionomer cement after reinforced with two different nanoparticles. Int. J. Dent. 31, 7808535 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/780853510.1155/2020/7808535 ↗
19. S.K. Sidhu, J.W. Nicholson, A review of glass-ionomer cements for clinical dentistry. J. Funct. Biomater. (2016). https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb703001610.3390/jfb7030016 ↗
20. S. Ganguly, P. Das, T.K. Das, S. Ghosh, S. Das, M. Bose, M. Mondal, A.K. Das, N.C. Das, Acoustic cavitation assisted destratified clay tactoid reinforced in situ elastomer-mimetic semi-IPN hydrogel for catalytic and bactericidal application. Ultrasonics Sonochem. 60, 104797 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2019.10479710.1016/j.ultsonch.2019.104797 ↗
21. F. Amin, S. Rahman, Z. Khurshid, M.S. Zafar, F. Sefat, N. Kumar, Effect of nanostructures on the properties of glass ionomer dental restoratives/cements: a comprehensive narrative review. Materials (Basel) 14(21), 6260 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/ma1421626010.3390/ma14216260 ↗
22. E. Gjorgievska, G. van Tendeloo, J. Nicholson, N. Coleman, I. Slipper, S. Booth, The incorporation of nanoparticles into conventional glass-ionomer dental restorative cements. Microsc. Microanal. 21, 1–15 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1017/S143192761500005710.1017/S1431927615000057 ↗
23. R. Rafiee, S. Reza, Mechanical properties of nanoclay and nanoclay reinforced polymers: a review. Polym. Compos. (2018). https://doi.org/10.1002/pc.2472510.1002/pc.24725 ↗
24. S. Ganguly, S. Margel, A review on synthesis methods of phyllosilicate- and graphene-filled composite hydrogels. J. Compos. Sci. 6(1), 15 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs601001510.3390/jcs6010015 ↗
25. M. Fareed, A. Stamboulis, Nanoclay-reinforced glass-ionomer cements: in vitro wear evaluation and comparison by two wear-test methods. Dent. J. (2017). https://doi.org/10.3390/dj504002810.3390/dj5040028 ↗
26. M. Fareed, A. Stamboulis, Effect of nanoclay dispersion on the properties of a commercial glass ionomer cement. Int. J. Biomater. (2014). https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/68538910.1155/2014/685389 ↗
27. L.S. Soumya, A.S. Gopinath, D.V. Arsha, A. Ancy, K. Jayan, V.P. Aruna, A. Kanchana Devi, Zirconia reinforced glass ionomer cement—a review. Int. J. Sci. Res. 8(3), 2277–8179 (2019). https://doi.org/10.36106/ijsr10.36106/ijsr ↗
28. F. Molaasadolah, S. Eskandarion, A. Ehsani, M. Sanginan, In vitro evaluation of enamel microhardness after application of two types of fluoride varnish. J. Clin. Diagn. Res. 11(8), ZC64–ZC66 (2017). https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2017/30121.1041210.7860/JCDR/2017/30121.10412 ↗
29. A. Mira, M. Ghulman, O.M. Fahmi, M.M. Gomaa, Assessment of pulp response to different remaining dentin thicknesses (RDT) and a dentin bonding agent. An in-vivo study. Egypt. Dent. J. 52(2), 979–989 (2006)
30. C.A. de Souza Costa, J. Hebling, R.C. Randall, Human pulp response to resin cements used to bond inlay restorations. Dent. Mater. 22, 954–962 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2005.10.00710.1016/j.dental.2005.10.007 ↗
31. Y. Shimada, M.A. Uzzaman, J. Tagam, T. Tanaka, T. Nakata, Y. Nakaoki, H. Sano, Effect of curing method of a dual-cure resin cement on monkey pulpal reaction after bonding of tooth-colored inlay. Dent. Mater. 26(1), 122–128 (2007). https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.26.12210.4012/dmj.26.122 ↗
32. F.W. Paula-Silva, A. Ghosh, L.A. Silva, Y.L. Kapila, TNF-alpha promotes an odontoblastic phenotype in dental pulp cells. J. Dent. Res. 88(4), 339–344 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1177/002203450933407010.1177/0022034509334070 ↗
33. A. Eskandarizadeh, M. Parizi, H. Goroohi, H. Badrian, A. Asadi, N. Khalighinejad, Histological assessment of pulpal responses to resin modified glass ionomer cements in human teeth. Dent. Res. J. 12(2), 144–149 (2015)
34. J.C. Adrian, J.L. Bernier, W.G. Sprague, Laser and the dental pulp. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 83(1), 113–117 (1971). https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1971.026710.14219/jada.archive.1971.0267 ↗
35. A.P.D. Ribeiro, N.T. Sacono, D.G. Soares, E.A.F. Bordini, C.A. de Souza Costa, J. Hebling, Human pulp response to conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cements applied in very deep cavities. Clin. Oral Investig. 24(5), 1739–1748 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-03035-310.1007/s00784-019-03035-3 ↗
36. M. Abdelaziz, R. Kasem, A. Abdelwahed, A. Farag, Assessment of montmorillonite nanoclay-modified glass ionomer biocompatibility focusing on pulp response. Egypt. Dent. J. 69, 427–438 (2023). https://doi.org/10.21608/EDJ.2022.175677.235410.21608/EDJ.2022.175677.2354 ↗
37. S. Ersahan, E.A. Oktay, F.A. Sabuncuoglu et al., Evaluation of the cytotoxicity of contemporary glass-ionomer cements on mouse fibroblasts and human dental pulp cells. Eur. Arch. Paediatr. Dent. 21, 321–328 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-019-00481-110.1007/s40368-019-00481-1 ↗
38. T.Y. Hosida, A.C.B. Delbem, L.A. Morais et al., Ion release, antimicrobial and physio-mechanical properties of glass ionomer cement containing micro or nanosized hexametaphosphate, and their effect on enamel demineralization. Clin. Oral Investig. 23, 2345–2354 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2674-910.1007/s00784-018-2674-9 ↗
39. T. Tüzüner, A. Dimkov, J.W. Nicholson, The effect of antimicrobial additives on the properties of dental glass-ionomer cements: a review. Acta Biomater. Odontol. Scand. 5, 9–21 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1080/23337931.2018.153962310.1080/23337931.2018.1539623 ↗
40. C. Costa, J. Heblingb, F. Garcia-Godoyc, C. Hanksd, In vitro cytotoxicity of five glass-ionomer cements. Biomaterials 24, 3853–3858 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/s0142-9612(03)00253-910.1016/s0142-9612(03)00253-9 ↗
41. J. Lewis, L. Nix, G. Schuster, C. Lefebvre, K. Knoernschild, G. Caughman, Response of oral mucosal cells to glass ionomer cements. Biomaterials 17, 1115–1120 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-9612(96)85913-810.1016/0142-9612(96)85913-8 ↗
42. M. Ghavamnasiri, N. Mousavinasab, A. Mohtasham, Histopathologic study on pulp response to glass ionomer cements in human teeth. J. Dent. Tehran Univ. Med. Sci. Tehran Iran 2(4), 135–141 (2005)
43. H. Negm, M. Abi-Elhassan, I. Ahmed, W. Elhossary, A. Abo Elezz, Evaluation of pulp reaction of nanoclay modified adhesive systems using bulk fill resin composite. Dent. Sci. Updates 4(1), 13–24 (2023). https://doi.org/10.21608/dsu.2023.119260.110310.21608/dsu.2023.119260.1103 ↗
44. M. Temirek, M. Abdelaziz, W. Alshareef, Antibacterial activity of nanoclay-modified glass ionomer versus nanosilver-modified glass ionomer. J. Int. Dent. Med. Res. 15(4), 1442–1449 (2022)
45. N. Patil, B. Kandasubramanian, Biological and mechanical enhancement of zirconium dioxide for medical applications. Ceram. Int. (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2019.10.22010.1016/j.ceramint.2019.10.220 ↗
46. H. Atalay, A. Celik, F. Ayaz, Investigation of genotoxic and apoptotic effects of zirconium oxide nanoparticles (20 nm) on L929 mouse fibroblast cell line. Chem. Biol. Interact. (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbi.2018.09.01710.1016/j.cbi.2018.09.017 ↗
47. M. Mateia, E.-A. Voineab, R. Rîcaa, H. Manoleaa, L. Mogoantaa, A. Salana, A. Rîcaa, V.C. Dinescua, N. Cioaterab, New zirconia-based materials for dental applications. Structural, morphological and histological evaluation. Ceram. Int. 45, 14859–14866 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2019.04.21710.1016/j.ceramint.2019.04.217 ↗
48. A. Laiteerapong, F. Reichl, R. Hickel, H. Högg, Effect of eluates from zirconia-modified glassionomer cements on DNA double-stranded breaks in human gingival fibroblast cells. Dent. Mater. 35, 444–449 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2019.01.00410.1016/j.dental.2019.01.004 ↗
49. S. Saxena, S. Tiwari, Energy dispersive X-ray microanalysis, fluoride release, and antimicrobial properties of glass ionomer cements indicated for atraumatic restorative treatment. J. Int. Soc. Prevent. Community Dent. 6, 366–372 (2016). https://doi.org/10.4103/2231-0762.18679010.4103/2231-0762.186790 ↗
50. J.M. Guerreiro-Tanomaru, A. Trindade-Junior, B. Cesar Costa et al., Effect of zirconium oxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles on physicochemical properties and antibiofilm activity of a calcium silicate-based material. Sci. World J. (2014). https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/97521310.1155/2014/975213 ↗
51. Y. Josset, Z. Oum’Hamed, A. Zarrinpour, M. Lorenzato, J.-J. Adnet, D. Laurent-Maquin, In vitro reactions of human osteoblasts in culture with zirconia and alumina ceramics. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 47, 481–493 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-4636(19991215)47:4%3c481::aid-jbm4%3e3.0.co;2-y10.1002/(sici)1097-4636(19991215)47:4<481::aid-jbm4>3.0.co;2-y ↗