|
Clinical Use Of Glass Ionomer Cement: A Literature Review
Iman A.AI-Badry, BDS*, Faten M. Kamel, BDS, MSc, PhD**
*Department of Restorative Dentat Sciences, King Saud University, College of Dentistry, P.O. Box 60169,
Riyadh 11545, Saudi Arabia.
** Consultant, Abu Dhabi Dental Center, P.O. Box 848, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
Class ionomer cement (GIC) was first introduced to clinical
dentistry by Wilson and Kent in 1972. GIC has undergone continuous development
designed to take advantage of the material's unique characteristics. GIC's
tissue compatibility, fluoride release, and chemical union with underlying
tooth tissue explain the wide variety for its clinical uses. Classification of
the different types of GIC, ranging from luting, lining, restorative esthetics
and reinforced varieties, suggests valuable potential uses in restorative dentistry.
GIC has been recognized by pediatric dentists as well suited to preventive
dentistry demands. The advantages of using GIC include its adhesion to
underlying tooth tissue and fluoride release. However, a reservation on GIC use
is its lack of fracture strength which may be surmounted in the foreseeable
future. Satisfactory esthetic result can be produced with the new version of
GIC but it is generally less pleasing than that with composite resin. It must
be noted that GIC, like any other restorative dental materials, requires proper
handling and attention to details during clinical application.
Glass ionomer cement (GIC) was first reported in the
dental literature by Wilson and Kent in 1972.] Since then, GIC has undergone
continuous development, improvement and diversification, both in its
constituents and clinical application to
provide the material's unique characteristics.2,3 Improvements
on its delivery system, setting time, strength, light curing, increased
molecular weight of the polyacid and adhesion have all been made since the
initial introduction of the material.4
GICs possess certain properties that make them useful as
restorative filling materials. These properties include a low coefficient of
thermal expansion similar to that of tooth structure, physico-chemical bonding
to both enamel and dentin5,6 and the release of
fluoride ions into adjacent tooth structures.7 The main criticisms of the glass ionomer
cements are their brittleness, poor surface polish, porosity, technique sensitivity
and surface wear.8-10
Composition
Glass ionomer cements (GICs) are basically formulated into
powder and liquid. The powder is composed of calcium aluminum fluorosilicate
glass, and the liquid iseithera polyacrylic acid or its copolymers. Tartaric acid
may also be added to the liquid to prolong the working time.11 Incorporation of metal fibers or powders into
the glass ionomer powder was attempted in an effort to increase the flexural
strength. Simmons12 described the "Miracle Mixture*" in which amalgam
alloy powder was incorporated in the glass ionomer cement at the mixing stage.
This did not improve the abrasion resistance because of lack of strong bonding
between the metal filler and the polyacrylate matrix.12,13 This problem was solved by sintering the metal
powder into the glass powder. Fine, precious metal powders such as silver or
gold were mixed with glass powder resulting in the formulation of a cermet
(ceramic-metal).14-16 Two types of silver cermet ionomer cements
were available, Chelon-Siiver* for hand mixing and Ketac Silver** for
mechanical mixing. However, the strength of these metal reinforced cements was
still found to be inadequate for use in high stress-bearing area.17 Kerby et
al18 found that stainless-steel reinforced GIC has
higher tensile and compressive strength than silver reinforced cement.
Recently, certain GICs contain strontium in place of
calcium, barium or lanthanum to achieve radiopacity.19 In 1984 water setting GICs were developed
whereby polyacrylic acid can be obtained in solid form and blended with
inorganic powder. Therefore, an aqueous solution of tartaric acid can be used
to prepare the paste. This procedure led to prolonged working time, better
stability and unlimited shelf life.20 Ketac
products add polymaleic acid to the liquid, although polyacrylic based cements
appear to be less soluble and more erosion resistant.21
Setting Reaction of GIC
The setting reaction of GIC is represented as an acid-base
reaction between polyacid liquid and glass.22 Attack of the surface of the glass particles
causes release of calcium and
aluminum ions which cross-link
with polyacid chains into a network.23 This ion
release is facilitated by tartaric acid which readily forms complexes with
these ions and with the polyacrylate chain.11
When the glass powder and aqueous liquid are mixed
together to form a paste, the glass reacts with the polyalkenoic acid to form a
salt hydrogel which serves as the binding matrix. Water is the reacting medium,
an essential part of the hydrogel, and is required to hydrate the formed metal
polyal-kenoate. The glass ionomer cement sets and hardens by transfer of metal
ions, calcium and aluminum, from the glass to the polyacrylic acid, which
causes gelation in the aqueous phase. During the process of transfer, the
matrix-forming metal ions are in a soluble form and vulnerable to attack by
aqueous fluids.24,25 Therefore, some form of protection is
essential during setting. In fast setting cements, the time span during which
the cement is susceptible to water uptake is shortened to a matter of minutes
at the expense of esthetics. Water loss through dehydration will cause all
types of GICs to shrink, crack and produce undue stress on the newly forming
ionic exchange layer at the interface with the underlying tooth structure.26,27
The final set structure is a complex composite of the
original glass particles sheathed by a siliceous hydrogel and bonded by a
matrix phase consisting of hydrated fluoridated calcium and aluminum
polyacrylates.19
Light-Cured GIC
Two systems of light-cured GICs are commercially
available, the Vitrabond* and XR-ionomer*. In Vitrabond, the powder is composed
of a radiopaque fluoro-alumino-silicate glass containing a photo sensitizer.
The liquid is an aqueous solution of polyacrylic acid copolymers containing
methacrylate groups with 10% hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) and a
photo-initiator. The structure of the light-cured polymer-reinforced cement is
composed of a composite of glass particles and hydrogel matrix. This matrix is
a polymer network consisting of the ionic metal polyacrylate hydrogel entangled
with the polyhydroxy-ethyl- methacrylate hydrogel. In the XR-ionomer, the
powder is composed of a calcium alumino fluosili-cate glass and the liquid is a
polymerizable polyacid copolymer with a photo initiator.19
Properties of GICs
1. Adhesion
Glass
ionomer cements are capable of permanently adheringto enamel, dentin and base
metals.5 GICs adhere so tenaciously to dentin that
failure ofthe union would occur within the cement itself rather than within the
dentin.6,28 There
is ionic exchange between cement and tooth structure which may result in
developing an ion-enriched layer in the cement at its interface with tooth
structure. This layer is composed of calcium and phosphorous from both the
dentin and the cement and aluminum from the latter.29
2. Fluoride Release
Fluoride
ions are released slowly from the glass ionomer restorations over an extended
period of time. Fluoride is taken up by tooth structure not only adjacent to a
restoration but also in areas up to three millimeters away from the restoration
margin and may offer protection to the entire tooth.7,30-32 Due to the fluoride released by glass ionomer
restorations, fluoride level rises in saliva and also in plaque adjacent to the
GIC.33 Fluoride released from GIC restorations can
exert an inhibitory effect on the development of recurrent caries due to
diffusion of fluoride ions through the restoration tooth interface.34
3. Biocompatibility
Glass
ionomer cements produce an adhesive chemical bond to tooth structure and
release fluoride.5,7 Chemical adhesion requires intimate contact
with enamel and dentin. Cases of tooth sensitivity following the use of glass
ionomer cement in35,36 Post cementation hypersensitivity may occur in
a deep preparation where the dentinal tubules are left without protection
against the hydraulic pressure resulting from cementation.37
Simmons38 believe
that this post cementation hypersensitivity is limited to the anhydrous glass
ionomer cements. Smith and Ruse39 reported
that glass ionomer luting cements showed low pH values for a relatively long
period after mixing. The pH of Chembond*, which is an anhydrous luting cement,
remained low for even a longer period which possibly explains the increased
pulpal response to anhydrous luting cements. Another explanation of post
cementation hypersensitivity is that it may be the result of dehydration of the
tooth prior to cementation.40 This may
exacerbate the effect ofthe lower pH values for longer time periods observed
with the GIC.39 But, in a national survey, it has been found
that zinc phosphate cement contributed to post operative sensitivity more than
GICs when used as a luting agent.40
In vivo and in vitro studies
suggest that glass ionomer cements are mild irritants5 to the dental pulp. The extent of the
inflammatory response depends upon the thickness of the residual dentin.41
The worst pulp reaction occurred under GICs when thickness
of the remaining dentin was 0.5 mm or less.42 Therefore, a sub-lining of fast setting
calcium hydroxide is recommended if there is less than 0.5 mm of remaining
dentin or there is a possibility of actual pulpal exposure.43
GICs, particularly the restorative materials, have been
shown to offer good biological compatibility with the dental pulp when used as
recommended and when the clinical technique followed is of a good standard.41
Types of Glass Ionomer Cements
A classification of four different types of GICs has
evolved: I - luting cements (Chembond*, Ketac Cem‡); II - restorative esthetics
(ChemFil ll†, Ketac-Fil‡); III - restorative reinforced cements (Ketac
silver‡); IV - lining cements (Ketac bond‡, G-c lining cement§).44
Type 1 Luting Cements
GICs have been available for many years but there has been
some degree of controversy over the need to change from zinc phosphate cement.
GICs offer some advantages over zinc phosphate cement of
which are better flow and lower solubility.45 Moreover, the fluoride release helps prevent
recurrent caries even though this is very minimal.46 GICs were shown to have the highest
retentive value among the luting cements.47,48
Type II Restorative Esthetics
This is a slow setting cement and requires continuing
isolation from the oral environment for up to 24 hours in order to achieve
optimum physical properties and translucency. Final decision on adequacy of the
color match should be delayed for one week.27 Contouring and polishing should always be
performed under air-water spray using a very fine diamond to begin with and
finishing with aluminum oxide discs.9,43
Type III Restorative Reinforced
These cements have short setting times, e.g. Ketac silver.
They can be finished five minutes after the start of mix. They lack
translucency and esthetic appeal, therefore, they are used only in areas where
esthetics is of no concern.15
This type has improved physical properties compared with
conventional glass ionomers, such as higher compressive strength,49 higher compressive fatigue limit,50 and better wear resistance.51 Fracture resistance is similar to the
unreinforced type.52
Restorative reinforced GICs have a number of clinical uses
such as for bases,53,54 restorations (class
V, minimal class II. e.g. tunnel preparation,16 and primary teeth),55-57 sealants, repairs of castings16 and temporary or emergency procedures.58
However, the more common use of these cements is probably
for core buildups where moderate strength and cariostatic effects are required.
The tensile strength of these cements is not high, therefore, they still
require considerable support from remaining tooth structure.59
Type IV Lining and Base Cements
This category includes a great variety of cements which
are used for conventional lining under restorations or as a base and a dentin
substitute. 53,54,60-62
The same cement can be used for the latter uses with alteration in the
powder/liquid ratio. This type of GIC has a low powder/liquid ratio if
used as conventional lining agent to flow easily over the pulpal floor. This
lining material includes both the chemi- cally activated and light activated
varieties.63 The light activated glass ionomer cements that
contain polyalkenoic acid may be superior in strength to the hand mixed
cements.64
When this type is used as a base and dentin substitute,
it requires strong physical properties which is obtained through greater
powder/liquid ratio. The low fracture resistance of these cements can be
compensated for by the other restorative material {composite resin or amalgam)
which is placed over the glass ionomer cement and will absorb the major stress.53,54,60
Clinical application of GICs
1. Fissure Sealing
GICs,
with their caries preventing ability, might have been expected to be the ideal
fissure sealing materials.64 Some
authors advocate that the fissure should be widened to ensure successful retention
of the GICs.65,66
2. Incipient Fissure Caries
The
ultra conservative fissure restoration demands early intervention.4 The concept of "wait and see" rests on the
premise that remineralization might occur, given proper dental health.
Unfortunately, if remineralization does not occur, the destruction of tooth
structure might be so extensive that micro-cavity preparation would no longer
be usable. Therefore, if fissure caries is found, a cavity will be prepared
without extending into non-carious tissue. Then the cavity is restored and the
fissure is sealed with GIC. This technique is defined by the British Dental
Association on fissure sealants.67
3. Approximal Class II Lesion
GICs
are brittle materials and, although some of them have high compressive strength,
they are weak and unsuitable for cavities in high stress bearing situations.
Nevertheless, in early approximal carious lesions, access to the lesions could
be gained from the buccal or lingual or occlusal aspect just below the crest of
the marginal ridge. If access is available, approximal approach to an
approximal microcavity could be used. Cement can be injected into the lesions
and the marginal ridge can be preserved.6B
4. Class III Facial or Lingual
GICs
can be used in facia! and lingual class 111 cavities. The placement of these
cements require minimal operative procedure. Direct access to the carious
lesion is needed with the preservation of the maximum amount of remaining sound
tooth. Cements are used mainly to repair root surface carious lesions and the
design applied can be either from the facial or the lingua! direction,
depending upon the position of the lesion relative to the surrounding
structures.66 The material of choice for class Ill cavities
is a restorative reinforced cement, if access is difficult and esthetics is
of no concern. Restorative esthetic cement may also be used provided that it is
radiopaque. Cermet ionomers are useful for restoring areas of root caries in
the posterior region. In older patients, subgingival caries is difficult to
treat and the problem of moisture control makes placement of composite or
amalgam difficult. In such cases, Ketac silver can be injected subgingivally
despite the presence of moisture.16 Retention
of the cermet ionomer will be improved with slight mechanical retention, but
bonding in a nonstress-bearing area is usually successful. Also, in older
patients where the oral hygiene is poor, the fluoride released from the cermet
can control the spread of root caries.66
5. Restoration of Primary Teeth
It
was suggested that GICs are suitable to restore cavities
in deciduous teeth.69,70 Croll and Phillips71 have made extensive use of Ketac silver for
restoring primary teeth. They advocated its use in bulk to prevent fracture in
a narrow isthmus. They also advised that restored marginal ridges should be
left slightly out of occlusion. The basic principles of "retention form" must
be observed for best results. Another clinical study confirmed the suitability
of using glass ionomer silver cermet in restoring class II lesions in primary
teeth in specific clinical situations.72
In
young patients, Croll57 has found that silver
cermet is ideal for tunnel restorations because of its radiopacity,
injectability and convenience of the precapsulated system.
GICs
were found to have a median survival time of around three years when used to
restore class I and class II cavities in primary teeth.73 They can be used for children as luting
cements, dentin replacement liners and bases, and glass ionomer dentin and
enamel restorative materials.57
6. Cervical Root Lesions
GICs
bond to enamel and dentin and require minimal cavity preparation, consequently,
they are a good choice for restoring cervical lesions.74 Clinical studies showed retention of this
material in erosive root lesions to be superior to that of resin retained with
dentinal bonding agents with either etched or unetched enamel.75-77 Root surface caries can be restored
successfully with G1C, keeping in mind that a minor amount of mechanical
retention is desirable.78
These
lesions can be restored with cermet in the posterior region because esthetics
is not a concern. It can be injected into areas of difficult access and sets
rapidly. Esthetically acceptable restoration in the anterior region can be
obtained by using the unreinforced type. When color is not satisfactory the
cement can be cut back and veneered with composite resin.78-80
7. Tunnel Preparation
This
type of preparation was adopted by several investigators.81,82-84 They used a small round bur to gain entry via
an occlusal fossa through a tunnel under the marginal ridge towards the
aproximal carious lesions. Other reports advocated this preparation in primary
molars.3,56
In
deciduous molars, tunnel preparations can be restored with cermet, while in permanent
teeth the gray color and poor fracture resistance, of cermet are not
acceptable. For this reason, it is better to restore the tunnel with cermet
then cutting back a room for composite which means veneering on the occlusal
surface. The technique of restoring a tunnel preparation with glass
ionomer-silver cermet bonded to composite resin is described in detail by
Croll.85
8. Core Build-up
Ideally,
cermet ionomers are best used for core buildups in posterior teeth in which at
least 2 mm of coronal dentin is still intact.16,44,86 Some investigators16,64,87 found that root fracture occurred when cermet
ionomer was used in conjunction with endodontic posts. Therefore, they advised
not to rely solely on molecular bonding to tooth structure. The strength of the
bond is inadequate where high stresses occur.88 In case of devitalized molars, at least two
endodontic posts should be inserted at different angles and extended through
the buildup. Yardley89 suggested a method to
use cermet ionomers for custom core construction after crown loss where the
natural core had been fractured leaving a flat root surface at the gingival
level. Where vital teeth are involved, accessory pin anchorage may be
necessary.
9. Base/Lining Cements
GICs
provide a biological seal and a useful cariostatic action in all cavities. It
should not be placed directly on the exposed pulp.90 GICs also provide thermal protection
to dentin and it is as efficient an insulator as is non-carious dentin.91 Base/lining cements' main uses are reported to
be under amalgam,54 composite resin60 or fissure sealant.92 The use under a fissure sealant is
called "preventive glass ionomer restoration".92
Composite
resin laminated onto a glass ionomer cement base, sometimes is known as the Sandwich technique, combines trans-lucency, aesthetics
and high flexural strength of composite resin with the good adhesiveness of the
glass ionomer cements. GIC with its physical properties makes an ideal dentin
substitute and the composite resin with its good translucency and high flexural
strength may be viewed as an enamel substitute.78 80 Mount91 discussed
the clinical requirement for a successful "Sandwich
technique".
10. Luting Cement
GICs
can be used as a luting cement because of their low viscosity, finegrain
andfilm thickness which is less than 20 um. Achieving the correct consistency
with the use of high vis-cosity liquids may be difficult. It is imperative to
follow the manufacturer's directions to obtain the correct consistency of the
mix at the optimum powder-liquid ratio. Thrn mixes have been considered as one
of the causes of the pulpal sensitivity encountered by some practitioners.64 GICs have been suggested as luting materials
for stainless steel crowns94 and orthodontic bands.95,96 The fluoride release to enamel adjacent to
orthodontic band margins and the adhesive bonding to tooth structure are
important advantages in using such cement to lute orthodontic bands.95,96
Luting
cement can be used also for cementation of cast posts. Its higher retention
value than that of zinc phosphate cements has been recorded.48
11. Retrograde Root Fillings
Cermet
ionomers can be used for repairing perforated root canals or as retrograde root
fillings. Bone healing has been shown to take place within the first year. It
can be used also as sealants for molar bifurcation area exposed in periodontal
disease.16,44
12. Miscellaneous
Cermet
ionomers are useful for repairing defective metal margins in crowns and inlays,
provided the margins are thoroughly cleaned. Ketac silver in this regard will
provide a long term marginal seal. Surface conditioning of the tooth with
polyacrylic acid is advised before injecting Ketac silver.16
When
metal crowns become loose as a result of decay at the margins, the carious
dentin may be removed and the crown recemented with Ketac silver. GICs can be
used as a last resort for reattachment of a loose abutment crown on one end of
a fixed prosthesis, where endodontic treatment has previously been carried out
using the parapost system.16 CrolI tried to repair
severe crown traumatic fracture with glass ionomer and composite resin bonding
to secure the fractured segment in place.97
Finishing of Glass lonomer Cements
In the past, a second appointment for final finish- ing
was required as the setting reaction was long and the material had insufficient
resistance to hydration and or dehydration.98 In 1981, a glass ionomer restorative
material (KetacFil*) was introduced with faster setting so early finishing
became possible.99 Based on clinical evidence, such finishing
neither disrupts the retention of the restorations nor damages the material.16,99
Some authors recommended that final finishing of Ketac fil
restorations can be accomplished 15 minutes after placement without impairing
their clinical performance.100,101
The behavior of the setting glass ionomer cement when the
surface is exposed to air and/or moisture has been well documented.25,26 However, clinical observations confirm that
chemical maturation is not achieved in these cements for probably 24 hours or
more.102 For this reason, the cement must be allowed to
mature completely under a protective coating in order to maintain its physical
properties and to allow an optimum degree of translucency with improved
esthetics.103 Application of low viscosity, single
component, light activated resin bonding agents were effective in inhibiting
outflow of water from the cement to a significant extent for at least the first
60 minutes of the setting reaction.104 Recently, it was found that covering the
cement with glazing agent offer the same degree of protection and color
stability as the bonding agent.105 It was
found that the chemically activated bonding resins are not able to control
water outflow. The GIC varnishes also were ineffective in preventing the
outflow of water from the glass ionomer cement. 104,106,107
Glass ionomer cement, introduced 21 years ago, was the
first adhesive restorative material with cariostatic property. It was mainly
used for restoring root caries, erosion and abrasion problems. Since its early
development by Wilson and Kent and subsequent commercial development by ASPA,
great changes in properties and handling characteristics have occurred.
Recently, specifically designed materials for the various
clinical applications have become available. The currently accepted
classification of GICs includes: luting, restorative, reinforced and lining
cements. These cements permit a wide variety of clinical applications
including: cementation of castings, restoration of minimal lesions, crown
buildups and cavity lining. GICs have been recognized by pediatric dentists as
being well suited to preventive dentistry demands.
Great attention to details of application and manufacturer
direction should be followed to have durable restorations. It is expected that
improvements will occur in the coming years regarding esthetic, strength and
abrasion resistance resulting in improved material for restoration of anterior
and posterior teeth.
- Wilson AD, Kent
BE. A new translucent cement for dentistry. Br Dent) 1972; 132:133-35.
-
Swift EJ. An update on glass
ionomer cements. Quintessence Int 1988;19:125-8.
-
Kopel HM. Use of glass ionomer
cements in pediatric dentistry. J Calif
Dent Assoc 1991 ;19:35-40.
-
McLean JW. Glass ionomer cements. Br
Dent J 1988;169:293-300.
-
Hotz P, McLean JW, Seed I, Wilson AD.
The bonding of glass ionomer cements to metal and tooth substrates. Br Dent J
1977;142:41-7.
-
Oilo G, Bond strength of new ionomer
cements to dentine. Scand J Dent Res 1981;89:344-47.
-
Swartz ML, Phillips RW, Clark JE.
Long term fluoride release from glass ionomer cement. J Dent Res
1984;63:158-60.
-
Maldonado A, Swartz ML, Phillips RW.
An in vitro study of certain properties of a glass ionomer cement. J Am Dent
Assoc 1978;96:785-91.
-
McKinney JE,
Antonucci|M, RuppNW. Wear and micro-hardness of ionomer cements. J Dent Res
1985:64:371, Sp. Issue Abstr# 1767.
-
Pearson G|. Finishing of glass ionomer cements. Dent Update
1991;18:424-28.
-
Wilson AD, Crisp S,
Ferner AJ. Reaction in glass ionomer cements IV, Effects of chelating
comonomers on setting behaviors.J Dent Res 1976;55:489-95.
-
Simmons JJ. The miracle mixture glass
ionomer and alloy powder. Texas Dent J 1983;1:6-11.
-
Simmons JJ. Silver alloy powder and
glass ionomer cement. J Am Dent Assoc 1990;120:49-51.
-
McLean JW. Alternatives to amalgam
alloys: Part I, Br Dent J 1984:157:432.
-
McLean JW, Casser O. Class cermet
cements. Quintessence Int 1985;16:333-43.
-
McLean JW. Cermet cements. J Am Dent
Assoc 1990;120:43-6.
-
Marker VA, Ferracane JL, Miller D,
Wong N. Characterization of metal-reinforced glass ionomer restorative
materials. J Dent Res 1985:64:297, Abstr# 1101.
-
Kerby RE, Bleiholder RF. Physical
properties of stainless-steel and silver-reinforced glass-ionomer cements. J
Dent Res 1991;70:1358-61.
-
Smith DC. Composition and
characteristics of glass ionomer cements. J Am Dent Assoc 1990;120:20-2.
-
McLean JW, Wilson AD, Prosser HJ.
Development and use of water hardening glass ionomer luting cements. J Prosthet
Dent 1984;52:175-81.
-
Stechell DJ, Teo CK, Khun AT. The
relative solubilities of four modern GICs. Br Dent J 1985;158:220-22.
-
Crisp S, Wilson AD. Reaction in glass
ionomer cements. J. Decomposition of the powder. J Dent Res 1974;53:1408-13.
-
Crisp S, Pringuer MA, Wardleworth D,
Wilson AD. Reaction in glass ionomer cement. II. An infrared spectroscopic
study. J Dent Res 1974;53:1414-19.
-
Myers ML, Staffanou RS. Marginal
leakage of contemporary cementing agents. J Prosthet Dent 1983;50:513-15.
-
Roulet JF, Waltic. Influence of oral
fluid on composite resin and glass ionomer cement. J Prosthet Dent
1984;52:182-89.
-
Crajower R, Cuelmann M. Dimensional
changes during setting of a glass ionomer filling material. Quintessence Int
1989;20:505-11.
-
Mount GJ. Esthetics with glass
ionomer cements and the sandwich technique. Quintessence Int 1990;21:93-101.
-
Mount GJ. Adhesion of glass-ionomer
cement in the clinical environment. Oper Dent 7991; 16:141-48.
-
Wilson AD, Prosser HJ, Powis DM.
Mechanism of adhesion of polyelectrolyte cements to hydroxyapatite. J Dent Res
1983;62:590-95.
-
Retief DH, Navia JM, Lopez H. A
microanalytical technique for the estimation of fluoride in rat molar enamel.
Arch Oral Biol 1977;22:207-13.
-
Swartz ML, Phillips RW, Clark HE,
Norman RD, Potter R. Ffuoride distribution in teeth using a silicate model. J
Dent Res 1980;59:1596-603.
-
Retief DH, Bradley EL, Denton JC,
Switzer P. Enamel and cementum fluoride uptake from a glass ionomer cement. Caries
Res 1984;18:250-57.
-
Forss H, Jokinen |, Spets-Happonen S,
Seppa L, Luoma H. Fluoride and mutans streptococci in plaque grown on glass
ionomer and composite. Caries Res 1991; 25:454-58.
-
Seift EJ. Effects of glass ionomers
on recurrent caries. Oper Dent 1989;14:40-3.
-
Council on Dental Materials,
Instruments, and Equipment. Reported sensitivity to glass ionomer luting
cements. J Am Dent Assoc 1984:109:476.
-
Knibbs PJ, Plant CG, Shovelton DS.
The performance of a zinc poiycarboxylate luting cement and a glass ionomer
luting cement in general dental practice. Br Dent J 1986;160:13-15.
-
Stanley HR. Pulpal responses to
ionomer cements -Biological characteristics. J Am DentAssoc 1990;120:25-9.
-
Simmons JJ. Post cementation
sensitivity commonly associated with the "anhydrous" forms of glass ionomer
luting cements: a theory. Texas Dent J 1988;10:7-8.
-
Smith DC, Ruse ND. Acidity of glass
ionomer cements during setting and its relation to pulp sensitivity. J Am Dent
Assoc 1986;112:654-57.
-
Klausner LH, Brandau HE, Charbeneau
CT. Glass ionomer cements in dental practice: A national survey. Oper Dent
1989;14:170-75.
-
Knibbs PJ. Glass ionomer cement, 10
years of clinical use. J Oral Rehabil 1988;15:103-15.
-
Pamerjir CH, Stanley HR. Primate
response to "anhydrous" chembond. J Dent Res 1984;63:171, Abstr # 1.
-
Mount G. Making the most of glass
ionomer cements. J. Dent Update 1991 ;18:276-79.
-
Wilson AD, McLean JW. Glass ionomer
cement. Chicago: Quintessence Publ Co, 1988.
-
Pluim LJ, ArendsJ, Havinga P,
Jongebloed WL, Stoknoos I. Quantitative cement solubility experiments in vivo.
J Oral Rehabil 1984;11:171-79.
-
Scoville RK, Foreman F, Burgess JO.
In vitro fluoride uptake by enamel adjacent to a glass ionomer luting cement.J
Dent Child 1990;57:352-55.
-
McComb D. Retention of castings with
glass ionomer cements. J Prosthet Dent 1982;48:285-88.
-
Young HM, Shen C, Maryniuk GA.
Retention of cast posts relative to cement selection. Quintessence Int
1985;16:357-59.
-
Murray AJ, Nanos JA, Fontenot RE.
Compressive strength of glass ionomer with and without silver alloy. J Dent Res
1986;65:193, Spec. Issue Abstr # 215.
-
Walls AWC, AdamsonJ, McCabejF, Murray
JJ. The properties of a glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cement incorporating
sintered metallic particles. Dent Mat 1987;3:113-16.
-
Moore BK, SwartzML, Phillips RW.
Abrasion resistance of metal-reinforced glass ionomer materials. J Dent Res
1985;64:37l,Spec. Issue Abstr # 1766.
-
Osman E, Moore BK, Phillips RW.
Fracture toughness of several categories of restorative materials. J Dent Res
1986;65:220, Spec. Issue Abstr # 456.
-
Kanca J. The Afunctional posterior
restoration. Quintessence Int 1988;19:659-62.
-
Scherer W, Cooper H, Kaim J,
Hittleman E, Staffa J. A sensitivity study in vivo: Glass ionomer versus zinc
phosphate bases beneath amalgam restorations. Oper Dent 1990;15:193-96.
-
Croll TP, Risenberger RE, Miller AS.
Clinical and histologic observations of glass ionomer silver cermet
restorations in six human primary molars. Quintessence Int 1988;19:911-19.
-
Croll TP. Glass ionomer - silver
cermet class II tunnel restorations. Their use for primary molars. J Pediat
Dent 1989;79:11-5.
-
Croll TP. Glass ionomers for infants,
children, and adolescents. J Am Dent Assoc 1990; 120:65-8.
-
Burke FJT. Cermet - an additional
use, Dent Update 1990;1 7:214.
-
Mount GJ. Making the most of glass
ionomer cement, 2. Dent Update 1991 ;18:324-28.
-
McLean JW, Powis DR, Prosser HJ,
Wilson AD. The use of glass ionomer cement in bonding composite resin to
dentine. Br Dent J 1985;158:410-14.
-
Godoy FG, Draheim RN, Titus HW. Shear
bond strength of a posterior composite resin to glass ionomer bases.
Quintessence Int 1988;19:357-59.
-
Holton JR, Nystrom GP, Douglas WH,
Phelps II RA. Microleakage and marginal placement of glass ionomer liner.
Quintessence Int 1990;21:117-22.
-
Tyas MJ. Developments in light-cure
lining materials. Aust Dent J 1989;34:578.
-
Tay WM, Lynch E. Glass ionomer
cements-clinical usage and experience, 2. Dent Update 1990;17:51-6.
-
McLean JW, Wilson AD. Fissure sealing
and filling with an adhesive glass ionomer cement. Br Dent J 1974; 136:269-76.
-
Mount GJ. Minimal treatment of the
carious lesion. Int Dent J 1991;41:55-9.
-
British Dental Association/Department
of Health and Social Security. Fissure sealants: report of joint BDA/DHSS
Working Party. Br Dent J 1986; 161:343-44.
-
Knight GM. The use of adhesive
materials in the conservative restoration of selected posterior teeth. Aust
Dent J 1984;29:324-34.
-
McLean JW, Wilson AD. The clinical
development of the glass ionomer cements, II. Some clinical applications. J
Aust Dent 1977;22:120-27.
-
Wilson AD. The development of glass
ionomer cements. Dent Update 1977;4:401.
-
Croll TP, Phillips RW. Glass ionomer
- silver cermet restorations for primary teeth. Quintessence Int 1986;
17:607-15.
-
Stratmaum RG, Berg JH, Donly KJ.
Class II glass ionomer silver restorations in primary molars. Quintessence Int
1989;20:43-7.
-
Welbury RR, Walls AWG, Murray JJ,
McCabe JF. The 5-year results of a clinical trial comparing a glass
polyal-kenoate (ionomer) cement restoration with an amalgam restoration. Br
Dent J 1991;170:177-81.
-
Rover BC, Morgano SM. Application of
glass ionomer cement to cervical root lesions with a vacuum formed template.
Gen Dent 1991;39:165-67.
-
Doering JV, Jensen ME. Clinical
evaluation of dentin bonding materials on cervical abrasion lesions. J Dent Res
1986;65:172, Abstr # 36.
-
Ziemieck TL, Dennison JB, Charbeneau
GT. Clinical evaluation of cervical composite resin restorations placed without
retention. Oper Dent 1987;12:27-33.
-
Heymann HO, Sturdevant JR, Brunson WD
et al. Twelve month clinical study of dentinal adhesives in class V cervical
lesions. J Am Dent Assoc 1988;116:170-83.
-
Mount GJ. Root surface recurrent
dilemma. Aust Dent J 1986;31:288-91.
-
Suzuki M, Jordan RE. Glass ionomer
composite sandwich technique. J Am Dent Assoc 1990;120:55-7.
-
McLean JW. Limitations of posterior
composite resins and extending their use with glass ionomer cements.
Quintessence Int 1987;18:517-29.
-
Brackett WW, Robinson PB. Composite
resin and glass ionomer cement: Current status for use in cervical
restorations. Quintessence Int 1990;21:445-47.
-
Hunt PR. A modified class II cavity
preparation for glass ionomer restorative materials. Quintessence Int
1984;15:1011-18.
-
Albers HF. Tunnel preparations for
proximal restorations in tooth colored restoratives. 7th ed. Calif: Alto Books,
1985, Chapter 11.
-
Hunt PR. Microconservative
restorations for approximal carious lesions. J Am Dent Assoc 1990;120:37-40.
-
Croll TP. Glass ionomer - silver
cermet bonded composite resin class II tunnel restorations. Quintessence Int
1988;19:533-39.
-
Burke FJT, Watt DC. Cermet - an ideal
core material for posterior teeth? Dent Update 1990;17:364-70.
-
Taleghani M, LeinFelder KF.
Evaluation of a new glass ionomer cement with silver as a core build up under a
cast restoration. Quintessence Int 1988;19:19-24.
-
Sherer Wl, Cooper HJ, Giglio GO,
Hamburg M. Glass ionomer cement post-core buildup and the sandwich technique.
Gen Dent 1989;37:24-5.
-
Yardley RM. Custom core construction
using glass ionomer cements. Dent Update 1990;17:124-27.
-
Woolford MJ. The surface pH of glass
ionomer cavity lining agents. J Dent Res 1989;17:295-300.
-
Lay WM, Braden M. Thermal diffusivity
of glass ionomer cements. J Dent Res 1987;66:1040-43.
-
Godoy FG. The preventive glass
ionomer restoration. Quintessence Int 1986;17:617-19.
-
Mount GJ. Clinical requirement for a
successful sandwich - dentin to glass ionomer cement to composite resin. Aust
Dent J 1989;34:259-65.
-
Carcia-Godoy F, Bugg JL. Clinical
evaluation of glass cementation on stainless steel crown retention. J Pedodont
1987;11:339-44.
-
Fricker JP, McLachlan MD. Clinical
studies of glass ionomer cements. Part I - A twelve month clinical study
comparing zinc phosphate cement to glass ionomer. Aust Orthod J 1985;9:179-80.
-
Norris DS, Ledoux PM, Schwaninger B,
Weinberg R. Retention of orthodontic bands with new fluoride-releasing
cements. Am J Orthodont 1986;89:206-11.
-
Croll TP. Repair of severe crown
fracture with glass ionomer and composite resin bonding. Quintessence Int
1988;19:649-53.
-
McLean JW, Wilson AD. The clinical
development of the glass ionomer cements, I. Formulations and properties. Aust
Dent J 1977;22:120-27.
-
Brakett WW, Johnston WM. Relative
microhardness of glass ionomer restorative materials as an indicator of
finishing time. J Am Dent Assoc 1989;118:599-602.
-
Matis BA, Cochran MA, Carlson T,
Phillips RW. Clinical evaluation and early finishing of glass ionomer
restorative materials. Oper Dent 1988;13:74-80.
-
Matis BA, Carlson T, Cochran M,
Philips RW. How finishing affects glass ionomers. Results of a five-year
evaluation. J Am Dent Assoc 1991;122:43-6.
-
Mount GJ, Makinson OF. Glass ionomer
restorative cements - clinical implication of the setting reaction. Oper Dent
1982;7:134-41.
-
NgoH, Earl MSA, MountGJ. Glass
ionomer cement. A12 month evaluation. J Prosthet Dent 1986;55:203-5.
-
Earl MSA, Mount GA, Hume WR. The
effect of varnish and other surface treatments on water movement across the
glass ionomer cement surface II. Aust Dent J 1989;34:326-29.
-
Hotta M, Hirukawa H, Yamamoto K.
Effects of coating materials on restorative glass ionomer cement surface. Oper
Dent 1992;17:57-61.
-
Earl MSA, Hume WR, MountGJ. Effect of
varnishes and other surface treatment on water movement across the glass
ionomer cement surface. Aust Dent J 1985,-30:298-301.
-
Earl MSA, Ibbetsson RJ. The clinical
disintegration of a glass ionomer cement. Br Dent J 1986;161:287-91.
|