Dental Journal of Advance Studies

Register      Login

VOLUME 2 , ISSUE 2 ( May-August, 2014 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

A Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Glass Ionomer Restoration with Different Surface Protectors - an In-Vitro Study

Nupur Ninawe, Ullal Anand Nayak, Vishal Khandelwal, Suyash Jain, Ambika Shrivastava Gupta

Keywords : Glass Ionomer restoration, Micro-leakage, Surface protection

Citation Information : Ninawe N, Nayak UA, Khandelwal V, Jain S, Gupta AS. A Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Glass Ionomer Restoration with Different Surface Protectors - an In-Vitro Study. 2014; 2 (2):105-108.

DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1671994

License: NA

Published Online: 12-05-2023

Copyright Statement:  NA


Aim: All the restorative material whatsoever introduced till-date have an inherent disadvantage of micro-leakage measurable different grades. The present study comparatively evaluates the micro-leakage of glass ionomer restoration with different surface protection methods. Methodology: 36 premolars were obtained without any cracks or restorations for the study. Teeth were stored in distilled water containing thymol crystals till the beginning of the study. The teeth were randomly divided into 3 groups based on surface protectors used. Group I is GC Fuji Varnish, Group II is vaseline and Group III is G-Coat plus along with GIC restoration. Class V cavities were prepared of dimensions mesio-distal width of 3 mm, occluso-gingival length of 2 mm, and a depth of 1.5 mm on buccal and lingual surfaces with a high-speed hand-piece with air-water spray. Results: Kruskal- Wallis test was applied and Vaseline group showed significantly less micro-leakage compared to G-Coat plus i.e. G-Coat plus exhibited significantly higher microleakage compared to other groups. Conclusion: Evaluation of micro-leakage of glass ionomer cements using various surface protecting agents, Vaseline was considered the best surface protecting agent maintaining the water balance and showing no micro-leakage.

PDF Share
  1. Pashley DH. Clinical considerations of microleakage. J Endod. 1990; 16(2):70-77.
  2. Craig RG, Powers JM. Restorative dental materials. 11th ed, Mosby Inc., St. Louis, 2002; 197-284.
  3. Upadhya NP, Kishore G. Glass ionomer cement -the different generations. Trends Biomater Artif Organs 2005; 18: 158-165.
  4. Wilson AD. Developments in glass-ionomer cements. Int J Prosthodont 1989; 2: 438-446.
  5. Sidhu SK, Watson TF. In vitro surface treatment and water balance of resin-modified glass- ionomers. J Dent Res 1995; 74: 475.
  6. Bouschlicher MR, Vargas MA. Effect of dessication on microleakage of glass-ionomer restorative materials. J Dent Res 1995; 74: 109.
  7. Wilson AD, McLean JW. Glass Ionomer. London: Quintessence Publishing; 1988:83-99.
  8. Wasson EA, Nicholsiin JW. A study of the relationship between the setting chemistry and properties of modified glass polyalkenoate cements. Br Polym J 1990; 23; 179-183.
  9. Gemalmaz D, Yoruc B, M Ozcan. Effect of early water contamination on solubility of glass ionomer luting cements. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1998, 80(4):474-478.
  10. Asmussen E. Opacity of glass ionomer cements. Acta Odontol Scand; 1983; 41:155-57.
  11. Earl MS, Hume WR, Mount GJ. Effect of varnishes and other surface treatment on water movement across the glass ionomer cement surface. Aust Dent J 1985;30:298-301.
  12. Rodrigues Garcia RC, De Goes MF. Influence of protecting agents on the solubility of glass ionomers. Am J Dent 1995;8:294-96.
  13. Hotta m, Hirukawa H, Yamamoto K. Effect of coating materials on restorative glass ionomer cement surface. Oper Dent 1992; 17:57-61.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.