Maria Fidela de Lima Navarro1, Renata Corrêa Pascotto2, Ana Flávia Sanches Borges3, Carlos José Soares4, Daniela Prócida Raggio5, Daniela Rios3, Eduardo Bresciani6, Gustavo Fabián Molina7, Hien Chi Ngo8, Ivana Miletić9, Jo Frencken10, Linda Wang3, Rafael Menezes-Silva3, Regina Maria Puppin-Rontani11, Ricardo Marins de Carvalho12, Sevil Gurgan13, Soraya Coelho Leal14, Tamer Tüzüner15, Ticiane Cestari Fagundes16, John William Nicholson17, Sharanbir Kaur Sidhu18. 1. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Alameda Dr. Octávio Pinheiro Brisolla, 9-75 - Jardim Brasil, 17012-901, Bauru, Brazil. Electronic address: mflnavar@usp.br. 2. Department of Restorative Dentistry, State University of Maringá, Av. Colombo, 5790 - Jd. Universitário, 87020-900, Maringá, Brazil. 3. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Alameda Dr. Octávio Pinheiro Brisolla, 9-75 - Jardim Brasil, 17012-901, Bauru, Brazil. 4. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Federal University of Uberlândia, Av. João Naves de Ávila, 2121 - Santa Mônica, 38408-100, Uberlândia, Brazil. 5. Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Av. Prof. Lineu Prestes, 2227 - Butantã, 05508-000, São Paulo, Brazil. 6. Institute of Science and Technology, State University of São Paulo, Av. Eng. Francisco José Longo, 777 - Jardim São Dimas, 12245-00, São José dos Campos, Brazil. 7. Universidad Católica de Córdoba, Obispo Trejo 323, X5000 IYG, Córdoba, Argentina. 8. Dean and Head of School/Director of OHCWA, The University of Western Australia, 512, 17 Monash Avenue, Nedlands, WA 6009, Australia. 9. School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Gundulićeva ul. 5, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia. 10. Department of Dentistry, Radboud University Medical Centre, Philips van Leydenlaan 25, 6525 EX, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. 11. Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Av. Limeira, 901 - Areião, 13414-903, Piracicaba, Brazil. 12. University of British Columbia, BC V6T 1Z4, Vancouver, Canada. 13. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Hacettepe University, 06800, Ankara, Turkey. 14. University of Brasília, 70910-900, Brasília, Brazil. 15. Karadeniz Teknik University, 61080, Trabzon, Turkey. 16. Araçatuba School of Dentistry, State University of São Paulo, Rua José Bonifácio, 1193, 16015-050, Araçatuba, Brazil. 17. Bluefield Centre for Biomaterials, Unit 34, 67-68 Hatton Garden, Holborn, London EC1N 8JY, England, United Kingdom. 18. Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Rd, Bethnal Green, London E1 4NS, England, United Kingdom.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to present the results of a consensus meeting on the threshold property requirements for the clinical use of conventional glass-ionomer cements (GICs) for restorative indications. METHODS: Twenty-one experts on GICs evaluated the results of tests on mechanical and optical properties of 18 different brands of restorative GICs: Bioglass R [B], Chemfil Rock [CR], Equia Forte [EF], Gold Label 2 [GL2], Gold Label 9 [GL9], Glass Ionomer Cement II [GI], Ionglass [IG], Ion Z [IZ], Ionomaster [IM], Ionofil Plus [IP], Ionostar Plus [IS], Ketac Molar Easymix [KM], Magic Glass [MG], Maxxion R [MA], Riva Self Cure [R], Vidrion R [V], Vitro Fil [VF] and Vitro Molar [VM]. All experiments were carried out by a team of researchers from Brazil and England following strict protocols, under the same laboratory conditions throughout, and maintaining data integrity. RESULTS: There was consensus on: determining as primary properties of the material: compressive strength, microhardness, acid erosion and fluoride release, and as secondary properties: contrast ratio and translucency parameter, in order to rank the materials. Seven brands were below the thresholds for restorative indications: IZ, IM, IG, MA, VF, B and MG. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the primary properties adopted as being essential for restorative indications, the conventional restorative GICs that met the thresholds and could be considered suitable as long-term restorative materials were: EF, GI, GL9, KM, IP, GL2, IS, CR, V, VM and R. A decision-making process to select the best GIC must also include results from clinical trials. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study provides a ranking of GICs that could be considered suitable as long-term restorative materials based on their main properties.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to present the results of a consensus meeting on the threshold property requirements for the clinical use of conventional glass-ionomer cements (GICs) for restorative indications. METHODS: Twenty-one experts on GICs evaluated the results of tests on mechanical and optical properties of 18 different brands of restorative GICs: Bioglass R [B], Chemfil Rock [CR], Equia Forte [EF], Gold Label 2 [GL2], Gold Label 9 [GL9], Glass Ionomer Cement II [GI], Ionglass [IG], Ion Z [IZ], Ionomaster [IM], Ionofil Plus [IP], Ionostar Plus [IS], Ketac Molar Easymix [KM], Magic Glass [MG], Maxxion R [MA], Riva Self Cure [R], Vidrion R [V], Vitro Fil [VF] and Vitro Molar [VM]. All experiments were carried out by a team of researchers from Brazil and England following strict protocols, under the same laboratory conditions throughout, and maintaining data integrity. RESULTS: There was consensus on: determining as primary properties of the material: compressive strength, microhardness, acid erosion and fluoride release, and as secondary properties: contrast ratio and translucency parameter, in order to rank the materials. Seven brands were below the thresholds for restorative indications: IZ, IM, IG, MA, VF, B and MG. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the primary properties adopted as being essential for restorative indications, the conventional restorative GICs that met the thresholds and could be considered suitable as long-term restorative materials were: EF, GI, GL9, KM, IP, GL2, IS, CR, V, VM and R. A decision-making process to select the best GIC must also include results from clinical trials. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study provides a ranking of GICs that could be considered suitable as long-term restorative materials based on their main properties.