Restoratif Cam İyonomer Simanlarda Güncel Yaklaşımlar

Geleneksel kavite açma yönteminde, çürük ve çürükten etkilenmiş diş dokularının tamamen uzaklaştırılması esasken; günümüzde sağlıklı ve remineralize olma potansiyeli olan çürükten etkilenmiş diş dokularını kaldırmadan, sadece yumuşak ve denatüre çürük tabakasının uzaklaştırılması esasına dayanan minimal invaziv yaklaşım ön plana çıkmaktadır. Minimal invaziv yaklaşımın kabul görmesiyle birlikte, remineralizasyon potansiyeline sahip restoratif materyaller önem kazanmıştır. Günümüzde önemli olan sadece dişin restore edilmesi değil, restorasyon sonrası mevcut dokunun tekrar invaziv bir işleme gerek kalmaksızın uzun süreli korunmasıdır. Bu nedenle yapılacak olan restorasyonun estetik özelliklerinin yanı sıra, fiziksel ve mekanik özellikleri de büyük önem taşımaktadır. Cam iyonomer simanlar tanıtılmasından bu yana farklı klinik uygulamalar için kullanılmışlardır. Son zamanlarda daimi restorasyon materyali olarak amalgam ve kompozit rezinler yerine cam iyonomer simanların kullanılması fikri ön plana çıkmıştır. Bu derleme, restoratif materyal olarak kullanımı artmakta olan cam iyonomer simanlardaki yenilikleri bir arada sunmak amacıyla hazırlanmıştır.

Recent Approaches In Restorative Glass Ionomer Cements

While removing caries and all affected tooth structure is essential in conventional cavity preparation techniques, nowadays with the minimal invasive concept, only soft and denatured caries lesions are removed leaving behind healthy and affected tooth structures. As minimal invasive procedures became widely accepted, restorative materials with remineralisation potential are getting more popular. Today restoring the tooth is not the only objective, it is also important to protect the existing tooth structures from any invasive treatment procedures for a long-time period. For that purpose, beside of being aesthetic, the restorative material of choice has to have good physical and mechanical properties. Glass ionomer cements were used for various clinical procedures since their introduction into the market. In recent years, glass ionomer cements are getting popular as posterior direct restorative material instead of amalgam and resin composites. This review presents the novelty about glass ionomer cements used as restorative material.

PDF

___

1. Hickel R, Manhart J, Garcia-Godoy F. Clinical results and new developments of direct posterior restorations. Am J Dent 2000; 13: 41-54.
2. Burgess O, Cakir D. Materials selection for direct posterior restoratives. http://www.ineedce.com/courses/2067/pdf/1108c ei_dentsply_restoratives.pdf. Erişim tarihi: 23 Ekim 2015.
3. Torabzadeh H, Ghasemi A, Shakeri S, Baghban AA, Razmavar S. Effect of powder/liquid ratio of glass ionomer cements on flexural and shear bond strengths to dentin. Braz J Oral Sci 2011; 10: 204-207.
4. Nicholson JW. Review: Glass ionomer dental cements: update. Mater Tech 2010; 25: 8-13.
5. Anusavice KJ. Challenges to the development of esthetic alternatives to dental amalgam in a dental researcher center. Trans Acad Dent Mater 1996; 9: 25-50.
6. Xie D, Brantley WA, Culbertson BM, Wang G. Mechanical properties and microstructures of glass-ionomer cements. Dent Mater 2000; 16: 129- 138.
7. Williams JA, Billington RW, Pearson GJ. Effect of moisture protective coatings on the strength of a modern metal-reinforced glass-ionomer cement. J Oral Rehabil 1998; 25: 535-540.
8. Davidson CL, Mjör IA. Advences in glassionomer cements. Quintessence Publishing Co Inc, Berlin/Chicago, 1999, 269-293.
9. Craig RG. Restorative dental materials. 11th edition, Mosby, London, UK, 2002.
10. Wilson AD, Kent BE, Clinton D, Miller RP. Alumino-silicate polyacrilic acid and related cements. Br Polym J 1974; 6: 165-179.
11. Wilson AD, Kent BE, Clinton D, Miller RP. The formation and microstructure of dental silicate cements. J Mater Sci 1972; 7: 220-238.
12. Al-Badry IA, Kamel FM. Clinical use of glass ionomer cement: a literature review. Saudi Dent J 1994; 6: 107-116.
13. Mount GJ. An atlas of glass-ionomer cements. A clinician's guide. Third edition, Martin Dunitz Ltd, UK, 2002.
14. Crisp S, Kent BE, Lewis BG, Ferner AJ, Wilson AD. Glass ionomer cement formulations. II. The synthesis of novel polycarboxylic acids. J Dent Res 1980; 59: 1055-1063.
15. Crisp S, Lewis BG, Wilson AD. Characterization of glass-ionomer cements: The effect of tartaric acid concentration in the liquid component. J Dent 1979; 7: 304-312.
16. Wilson AD, Mclean JW. Glass-ionomer cement. Quintessence Publishing Co, Chicago, USA, 1988.
17. Chemfil Rock, Scientific Compendium, Dentsply, http://www.dentsply.co.uk/uploads/files/scientificcompendium.pdf. Erişim tarihi: 23 Ekim 2015.
18. Hatton PV, Brook IM. Characterisation of the ultrastructure of glass-ionomer (poly-alkenoate) cement. Br Dent J 1992; 173: 275-277.
19. Lohbauer U. Dental glass ionomer cements as permanent fillig materials? - Properties, limitations and future trends. Materials 2010; 3: 76-96.
20. Mousavinasab M, Meyers I. Fluoride release and uptake by glass ionomer cements, compomers and giomers. J Biol Sci 2009; 4: 609-616.
21. Menezes JPL, Rosenblatt A, Medeiros E. Clinical evaluation of atraumatic restorations in primary molars: A comparison between 2 glass ionomer cements. J Dent Child 2006; 73: 91-97.
22. Kim KL, Namgung C, Cho BH. The effect of clinical performance on the survival estimates of direct restorations. Restor Dent Endod 2013; 38: 11-20.
23. Sidhu SK. Glass-ionomer cement restorative materials: a sticky subject? Aust Dent J 2011; 56: 23-30.
24. Dayangaç GB. Kompozit rezin restorasyonlar. Güneş Kitabevi Ltd. Şti, Ankara, 2000.
25. Welbury RR. Paediatric Dentistry. Oxford University Press, Hong Kong, PRC, 1997.
26. Hse KMY, Leung SK, Wei SHY. Resin-ionomer restorative materials for children: A review. Aust Dent J 1999; 44: 1-11.
27. Nicholson JW, Czarnecka B. The biocompatibility or resin-modified glass-ionomer cements for dentistry. Dent Mater 2008; 24: 1702-1708.
28. Hübel S, Mejare I. Conventional versus resinmodified glass-ionomer cement for Class II restorations in primary molars. A 3-year clinical study. Int J Paed Dent 2003; 13: 2-8.
29. Chinelatti MA, Ramos RP, Chimello DT, PalmaDibb RG. Clinical performance of a resinmodified glass-ionomer and two polyacidmodified resin composites in cervical lesions restorations: 1-year follow-up. J Oral Rehabil 2004; 31: 251-257.
30. Qvist V, Laurberg L, Poulsen A, Teglers PT. Class II restorations in primary teeth: 7-year study on three resin modified glass ionomer cements and a compomer. Eur J Oral Sci 2004; 112: 188-196.
31. Bala O. Poliasit-modifiye kompozit rezinler (kompomerler) literatür taraması. Cumhuriyet Üni Diş Hek Fak Derg 1998; 1: 113-118.
32. Jackson RD, Morgan M. The new posterior resins and simplified placement technique. J Am Dent Assoc 2000; 131: 375-383.
33. Hse KMY, Wei SHY. Clinical evaluation of compomer in primary teeth; 1-year results. J Am Dent Assoc 1997; 128: 1088-1096.
34. Pascon FM, Kantovitz KR, Caldo-Teixeira AS, Borges AFS, Silva TN, Puppin-Rontani RM, Garcia-Godoy F. Clinical Evaluation of composite and compomer restorations in primary teeth: 24-month results. J Dent 2006; 34: 381- 388.
35. Turkun LS, Celik EU. Noncarious class V lesions restored with a polyacid modified resin composite and a nanocomposite: a two-year clinical trial. J Adhes Dent 2008; 10: 399-405.
36. Gurgan S, Kutuk ZB, Ergin E, Oztas SS, Cakir FY. Four-year randomized clinical trial evaluate the clinical performarce of a glass ionomer restorative system. Oper Dent 2015; 40: 134-143.
37. Scholtanus JD, Huysmans MCDNJM. Clinical failure of Class-II restorations of a highly viscous glass-ionomer material over a 6-year period: A retrospective study. J Dent 2007; 35 :156-162.
38. Crowley CM, Doyle J, Towler MR, Hill RG, Hampshire S. The influence of capsule geometry and cement formulation on the apparent viscosity of dental cements. J Dent 2006; 34: 566-573.
39. Ferrari M. Use of glass-ionomers as bondings, linings or bases. In: Davidson CL, Mjör IA, editors. Advances in glass-ionomer cements. Quintessence Pub Co, Chicago, USA, 1999, 137- 148.
40. Molina GF, Cabral RJ, Mazzola I, Lascano LB, Frencken JE. Mechanical performance of encapsulated restorative glass-ionomer cements for use with Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART). J Appl Oral Sci 2013; 21: 243-249.
41. Dowling AD, Fleming GJP. Are encapsulated anterior glass-ionomer restoratives better than their hand-mixed equivalents? J Dent 2009; 37: 133- 140.
42. Guggenberger R, May R, Stefan KP. New trends in glass-ionomer chemistry. Biomaterials 1998; 19: 479-483.
43. Fleming GJP, Kenny SM, Barralet JE. The optimisation of the initial viscosity of an encapsulated glass-ionomer restorative following different mechanical mixing regimes. J Dent 2006; 34: 155-163.
44. Jorgensen KD, Iwaku M, Wakumoto S. Vacuummixing of silicate cement. Acta Odontol Scand 1969; 27: 453-465.
45. 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.
46. Ngo H, Peters MC, Mount GJ. Porosity reduction as a way to increase shearing strength of capsulated glass-ionomer cements. Trans Acad Dent Mater 1996; 9: 258.
47. Scholtanus JD, Huysmans MDNJM. Clinical failure of class-II restorations of a highly viscous glass-ionomer material over a 6-year period: A retrospective study. J Dent 2007; 35: 156-162.
48. Frankenberger R, Garcia-Godoy F, Kramer N. Clinical performance of viscous glass ionomer cement in posterior cavities over two years. Int J Dent 2009; 781462 Epub 2010 Feb 22.
49. Molina GF, Cabral RJ, Mazzola I, Brain Lascano L, Frencken Joe. Mechanical performance of encapsulated restorative glass-ionomer cements for use with Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART). J Appl Oral Sci 2013; 21: 243-249.
50. Turkun LS, Kanik O. Clinical evaluation of reinforced glass-ionomer systems after 6 years. 47th CED-IADR Meeting Belek, Antalya, 2015 Oral Presentation #016.
51. Nicholson JW, Czarnecka B. Kinetic studies of water uptake and loss in glass ionomer cements. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2008; 19: 1723-1727.
52. Naassan MA, Watson TF. Conventional glass ionomers as posterior restorations: A status report for the American Journal of Dentistry. Am J Dent 1998; 11: 36-45.
53. Gemalmaz D, Yoruc B, Ozcan M, Alkumru HN. Effect of early water contact on solubility of glass ionomer luting cements. J Prosthet Dent 1998; 80: 474-478.
54. Miyazaki M, Moore BK, Onose H. Effect of surface coatings on flexural properties of glass ionomers. Eur J Oral Sci 1996; 104: 600-604.
55. Hotta M, Hirukawa H, Yamamoto K. Effect of coating materials on restorative glass-ionomer cement surface. Oper Dent 1992; 17: 57-61.
56. Hankins AD, Hatch RH, Benson JH, Blen BJ, Tantbirojn D, Versluis A. The effect of a nanofilled resin-based coating on water absorption by teeth restored with glass ionomer. J Am Dent Assoc 2014; 145: 363-370.
57. Brochure G-Coat PLUS, file:///C:/Users/win7/Downloads/brochuregcoatplus.pdf. Erişim Tarihi: 23 Ekim 2015.
58. Easy Glaze, http://www.voco.com /en/products/_products/easy_glaze/VC_8400_10 16_GB_0710.pdf. Erişim Tarihi: 23 Ekim 2015.
59. Pacifici E, Bossu M, Giovannetti A, La Tore G, Guerra F, Polimeni A. Surface roughness of glass ionomer cements indicated for uncooperative patients according surface protection treatment. Ann Stomatol (Roma) 2014; 4: 250-258.
60. Bagheri R, Taha NA, Azar MR, Burrow MF. Effect of G-Coat Plus on the mechanical properties of glass-ionomer cements. Aust Dent J 2013; 58: 448-453.
61. Kanık Ö, Türkün LS. Daimi restoratif materyal olarak yeni cam iyonomer kombine sistemler. Dental Klinik 2013; 6: 32-36.
62. Ikemura K, Tay FR, Endo T, Pashley DH. A review of chemical-approach and ultramorphological studies on the development of flouride-releasing dental adhesives comprising new pre-reacted glass ionomer (PRG) fillers. Dent Mater 2008; 27: 315-339.
63. Gordon VV, Mondragon E, Watson RE, Garvan C, Mjör IA. A clinical evaluation of a self-etching primer and a giomer restorative material: Result at eight years. J Am Dent Assoc 2007; 138: 621-627.
64. Deliperi S, Bardwell DN, Wegley C, Congiu MD. In-vitro evaluation of giomers microleakage after exposure to 33% hydrogen peroxide: Self etch and total-etch adhesives. Oper Dent 2006; 31: 227- 232.
65. Gonzalez Ede H, Yap AU, Hsu SC. Demineralization inhibition of direct tooth-colored restorative materials. Oper Dent 2004; 29: 578- 585.
66. Okuyama K, Murata Y, Pereira PN, Miquez PA, Komatsu H, Sano H. Fluoride release and uptake by various dental materials after fluoride application. Am J Dent 2006; 19: 123-127.
67. Bansal R, Bansal T. A comparative evaluation of the amount of fluoride release and re-release after recharging from aesthetic restorative materials: An in vitro Study. J Clin Diagn Res 2015; 9: 11-14.
68. Tarasingh P, Sharada Reddy J, Suhasini K, Hemachandrika I. Comparative Evaluation of Antimicrobial Efficacy of Resin-Modified Glass Ionomers, Compomers and Giomers - An Invitro Study. J Clin Diagn Res 2015; 9: 85-87.
69. Gonulol N, Ozer S, Sen Tunc E. Water sorption, solubility, and color stability of giomer restoratives. J Esthet Restor Dent 2015; 27: 300-306.
70. Sunico MC, Shinkai K, Katoh Y. Two-year clinical performance of occlusal and cervical giomer restorations. Oper Dent 2005; 30: 282-289.
71. Gordan VV, Mondragon E, Watson RE, Garvan C, Mjör IA. A clinical evaluation of a selfetching primer and a giomer restorative material: results at eight years. J Am Dent Assoc 2007; 138: 621-627.
72. Jyothi K, Annapurna S, Kumar AS, Venugopal P, Jayashankara C. Clinical evaluation of giomer- and resin-modified glass ionomer cement in class V noncarious cervical lesions: An in vivo study. J Conserv Dent 2011; 14: 409- 413.
73. Gordan VV, Blaser PK, Watson RE, Mjör IA, McEdward DL, Sensi LG, Riley JL 3rd. A clinical evaluation of a giomer restorative system containing surface prereacted glass ionomer filler: results from a 13-year recall examination. J Am Dent Assoc 2014; 145: 1036-1043.
74. Sengul F, Gurbuz T. Clinical evaluation of restorative materials in primary teeth class II lesions. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2015; 39: 315-321.
75. Shafiei F, Abouheydari M. Microleakage of class V methacrylate and silorane-based composites and nano-ionomer restorations in fluorosed teeth. J Dent (Shiraz) 2015; 16: 100-105.
76. Miletic V. Nano-filled resin-modified glassionomer cement: "nano-ionomer" Ketac N100. http://dental-materials.blogspot.com.tr/2009 /11/nano-filledresinmodifiedglass.html. Erişim Tarihi: 23 Ekim 2015.
77. Falsafi A, Mitra SB, Oxman JD, Ton TT, Bui HT. Mechanisms of setting reactions and interfacial behavior of a nano-filled resinmodified glass ionomer. Dent Mater 2014; 30: 632-643.
78. Yip HK, Markovic DLj, Petrovic BB, Peric TO. Fluoride content and recharge ability of five glass ionomer dental materials. BMC Oral Health 2008; 28: 8-21.
79. Mitra SB, Oxman JD, Falsafi A, Ton TT. Fluoride release and recharge behavior of a nano-filled resin-modified glass ionomer compared with that of other fluoride releasing materials. Am J Dent 2011; 24: 372-378.
80. Upadhyay S, Rao A. Nanoionomer: Evaluation of microleakage. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2011; 29: 20-24.
81. Eronat N, Yilmaz E, Kara N, Ak AT. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of nano-filled resin-modified glass ionomer: An in vitro study. Eur J Dent 2014; 8: 450-455.
82. Konde S, Raj S, Jaiswal D. Clinical evaluation of a new art material: Nanoparticulated resin-modified glass ionomer cement. J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent 2012; 2: 42-47.