Indian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental Research
HOME | ABOUT US | EDITORIAL BOARD | AHEAD OF PRINT | CURRENT ISSUE | ARCHIVES | INSTRUCTIONS | SUBSCRIBE | ADVERTISE | CONTACT
Indian Journal of Dental Research   Login   |  Users online: 2979

Home Bookmark this page Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font size Increase font size         

 


 
Table of Contents   
ORIGINAL RESEARCH  
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 25  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 493-498
Surface micromorphological changes of glass ionomer following application of 1.23% acidulated phosphate fluoride: A scanning electron microscope study


1 Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Mar Baselious Dental College, Kothamangalam, India
2 Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Sree Sankara Dental College, Varkala, Kerala, India
3 Department of Pedodontics, Sree Mookambika Institute of Dental Sciences, Kulasekharam, Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu, India

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Submission25-Jun-2012
Date of Decision22-Nov-2013
Date of Acceptance01-Aug-2014
Date of Web Publication10-Oct-2014
 

   Abstract 

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the surface micromorphological changes of conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) (Fuji II, GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) and high strength, high viscosity GIC (Fuji IX GP, GC Corporation) subjected to 1.23% acidulated phosphate fluoride (APF) gel for 4 min. It also evaluated the surface micromorphological changes that occurred in these materials when they were coated with a layer of glass ionomer varnish prior to the application of 1.23% APF gel.
Materials and Methods: A total of 60 uniform glass ionomer cylinders were prepared (30 of each Fuji II and Fuji IX) and stored in distilled water for 48 h, following which they were divided into six groups depending on the surface treatment. Group 1: Fuji II alone, Group 2: Fuji IX alone, Group 3: Fuji II + 1.23% APF gel for 4 min, Group 4: Fuji IX + 1.23% APF gel for 4 min, Group 5: Fuji II + varnish + 1.23% APF gel for 4 min, and Group 6: Fuji IX + varnish + 1.23% APF gel for 4 min. After the required surface treatment had been done, the specimens were mounted, coated, and evaluated under scanning electron microscope.
Statistical Analysis: Kruskal-Wallis test applied to compare the level of degradation among the groups subjected to treatment was highly significant (P < 0.001). Mann-Whitney test was applied to test the association between glass ionomer varnish and level of surface degradation and was also statistically significant (P = 0.001).
Results: The results indicated that APF gel etched the surface of both Fuji II and Fuji IX. However, Fuji IX showed to possess better resistance to the erosive effect of APF than Fuji II. It was also observed that application of glass ionomer varnish prior to APF gel application protected the glass ionomer from the erosive effect of APF gel.
Conclusion: APF gel caused erosive wear of the GICs esp. Fuji II. Hence, it is advisable to avoid the use of APF containing preparations for regular home use especially in children having glass ionomer restoration. If APF gel is indicated or preferred for professional application, it is recommended to apply glass ionomer varnish on the restored teeth prior to the APF gel application.

Keywords: Acidulated phosphate fluoride gel, glass ionomer varnish, glass ionomers

How to cite this article:
Khosla E, Kuriakose S, Suderasen C. Surface micromorphological changes of glass ionomer following application of 1.23% acidulated phosphate fluoride: A scanning electron microscope study. Indian J Dent Res 2014;25:493-8

How to cite this URL:
Khosla E, Kuriakose S, Suderasen C. Surface micromorphological changes of glass ionomer following application of 1.23% acidulated phosphate fluoride: A scanning electron microscope study. Indian J Dent Res [serial online] 2014 [cited 2019 Nov 15];25:493-8. Available from: http://www.ijdr.in/text.asp?2014/25/4/493/142545
Restoring carious teeth is one of the major treatment needs of children. Today, glass ionomer cements (GIC) (Fuji II, GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) are extensively used as a restorative material in the primary dentition for a variety of procedures including occlusal, proximal, labial, lingual restorations and cementation of stainless steel crowns and orthodontic bands. The major advantages of GIC are their ability to release fluoride, recharge ability, chemical bonding to the tooth, biocompatibility, and esthetics. [1]

The major drawback of conventional glass ionomer is that these materials are sensitive to dehydration and susceptible to moisture contamination, which may result in a decline in their physical and esthetic properties. [2] This is overcome by allowing the cement to mature under a waterproof protective coating of varnish. [3]

However, evolution of high strength, high viscosity GICs have allowed wider application of these cements because of their faster hardening, decreased moisture sensitivity and improved wear resistance. [4],[5]

Glass ionomers are capable of acquiring further fluoride ions following exposure to fluoridated products; such as solutions, gels and dentifrices, thereby acting as rechargeable fluoride release systems. [6] However, the high reactivity of the fluoride agents used in topical fluorides may result in the deterioration of the surface properties of esthetic restorative materials. [7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12] This may affect the clinical durability of the restoration. [13]

This is of clinical significance because professional fluoride applications are recommended for patients with high caries susceptibility as frequently as 3 months in order to reduce caries. A commonly used topical fluoride for this procedure is 1.23% APF.

Therefore, patients with glass ionomer restorations, who receive topical fluoride treatments, could be at a risk of increased surface roughness, which in turn decreases surface hardness. This would make glass ionomer restorations susceptible to erosion and eventual degradation, thereby significantly shortening the life span of such restorations.

Hence, the present study was undertaken to evaluate the surface micromorphological changes of conventional glass ionomer (Fuji II) and high strength, high viscosity glass ionomer (Fuji IX) when subjected to 1.23% acidulated phosphate fluoride (APF) gel for 4 min. It also evaluated the surface micromorphological changes that occurred in these materials when they were coated with a layer of glass ionomer varnish prior to the application of 1.23% APF gel.

The study hypothesis is that:

  • There exists a difference in the level of surface micro-degradation between Fuji II and Fuji IX upon application of 1.23% APF gel
  • A layer of glass ionomer varnish applied to the surface of Fuji II and Fuji IX prior to the application of 1.23% APF gel will reduce the level of surface micro-degradation.



   Materials and methods Top


Materials

  • Conventional glass ionomer GC Fuji II
  • High strength, high viscosity GIC GC Fuji IX
  • Glass ionomer varnish; Shofu, Tokyo, Japan
  • 1.23% APF gels (Nupro).


Equipment

  • Scanning electron microscope, model: JSM 5600 LV (JEOL Ltd., Tokyo, Japan)
  • Ion sputtering unit JEOL JSM-1200 fine coater.


Method

Preparation of glass ionomer cylinders

Thirty cylinders each of Fuji II and Fuji IX were prepared using plastic moulds of the following dimensions-length 8 mm, height 3 mm, and width 3 mm. This ensured the standardization of shape and size of each specimen. The molds were coated with a thin layer of Vaseline on all sides. The materials were mixed according to the manufacturer's instructions and condensed into the Vaseline coated moulds in 3-4 small portions. The moulds were overfilled, and a cellophane strip was stretched over the surface and left undisturbed for 8 min at room temperature. The strips were removed, and excess glass ionomer trimmed off. The surface was finished and polished with fine polishing burs. The specimens were then stored in distilled water for 48 h.

Mounting of specimens

After 48 h, the specimens were dried using oil free water free syringes and divided into 6 groups depending on the surface treatment they received. Each group consisted of 10 cylinders.

  • Group 1: Fuji II alone (control group)
  • Group 2: Fuji IX alone (control group)
  • Group 3: Fuji II + 1.23% APF gel application for 4 min
  • Group 4: Fuji IX + 1.23% APF gel application for 4 min
  • Group 5: Fuji II + varnish + 1.23% APF gel application for 4 min
  • Group 6: Fuji IX + varnish + 1.23% APF gel application for 4 min.


(Note: In Group 5 and 6, chemical cure glass ionomer varnish was applied to the surfaces of glass ionomer cylinders and left to dry for 15 min before application of APF).

After the required surface treatment, the specimens were thoroughly rinsed with distilled water, dried, mounted and coated for examination under SEM.

Specimen coating

Specimen coating was done in JEOL  fine coater ion sputtering unit (JSM-1200) (JEOL Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). The mounted specimens were fixed in the sputter unit. The pressure of its vacuum chamber was reduced. A constant volt of 1 KV was maintained for 3-4 min. Thus, the heated coating material was rapidly evaporated into monatomic state. The vapor molecules, essentially unimpeded by air molecules, left the source and moved in a straight line until they impinged on the surface of specimens where they condensed to form a thin film. Using specimen holder, the specimens were mounted on the rotary device, which facilitated presenting all surface to evaporated source. Coating of all surfaces was carried out. The stub with the specimen was placed inside the vacuum chamber of scanning electron microscope (SEM). The accelerating voltage, angle of tilt and aperture were adjusted to suit the specimen and optimize the quality of micrograph. The surface was scanned at different magnification, observed on the screen and rated according to the following criteria:

  • Surface intact: Surface appears undisturbed, glass particles in level with matrix, no visible etched surfaces
  • Mild degradation: Surface appears roughened, glass particles in level with matrix, no visible cracks or voids
  • Moderate degradation: Surface irregular with particles partly protruding, a limited number of cracks or slight pitting of glass particles
  • Severe degradation: Little or no matrix around particles, the excessive number of voids, severe cracking or pitting present.



   Results Top


Control group

Control groups of Fuji II and Fuji IX did not show any signs of glass particle degradation or matrix dissolution. Narrow cracks and surface crazing could be seen. Agglomerates of unreacted particles were also seen. Glass ionomer lacks the resistance to dehydration, and the crazing is most likely due to high vacuum necessary for SEM.

Glass ionomer + 1.23% APF gel application for 4 min

Considerable dissolution of the matrix was observed in both the groups. Significant etching effect of this gel on glass particles was evident as pitting and cracking. Large numbers of voids-both rounded and irregular were also observed.

Glass ionomer + varnish + 1.23% APF gel application for 4 min

Only localized areas of etching lying beneath the folds of varnish were seen in both Fuji II and Fuji IX. These represent areas were the varnish was absent and thereby got exposed to the etching action of APF gel. The data were further analyzed to see the effectiveness of varnish in each group.

Statistical analysis

Nonparametric test was applied to compare the levels of degradation among the four groups which were subjected to treatment. Kruskal-Wallis test revealed that the difference between four groups was statistically highly significant with Group 6 (Fuji IX + varnish + 1.23% APF gel) showing least degradation (Mean rank 10.20) and Group 3 (Fuji II + 1.23% APF) highest degradation (34.30) [Table 1] and [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6].
Figure 1: Fuji II after immersion in water for 48 h. No other surface treatment done

Click here to view
Figure 2: Fuji IX after immersion in water for 48 h. No other surface treatment done

Click here to view
Figure 3: Fuji II after application of 1.23% acidulated phosphate fluoride gel for 4 min

Click here to view
Figure 4: Fuji IX after application of 1.23% acidulated phosphate fluoride gel for 4 min

Click here to view
Figure 5: Fuji II protected with varnish prior to application of 1.23% acidulated phosphate fluoride gel. Showing etching in areas where varnish was absent

Click here to view
Figure 6: Fuji IX protected with varnish prior to application of 1.23% acidulated phosphate fluoride gel. Shows etching in areas where varnish was absent

Click here to view
Table 1: Comparison of level of degradation among APF group and varnish protected APF group


Click here to view


Nonparametric Mann-Whitney test was used to analyze and compare the level of degradation between Fuji II and Fuji IX subjected to 1.23% APF gel for 4 min. It showed that Fuji II and Fuji IX were significantly different with Fuji II showing more degradation than Fuji IX (P = 0.001) [[Table 2], Graph 1a and b].
Table 2: Statistical analysis of level of degradation among the four groups which were subjected to treatment


Click here to view




Mann-Whitney test also analyzed the association between varnish and level of micro-degradation. It was found that application of varnish prior to applying 1.23% APF gel, caused highly significant reduction in the level of surface degradation in both Fuji II and Fuji IX groups (P < 0.001) [[Table 2] and Graph 2].

However, both Fuji II and Fuji IX coated with varnish showed a similar level of degradation with P > 0.05; that was not statistically significant [Graph 3].


   Discussion Top


Fluorides are undoubtedly an important part of preventive dental therapy. They are capable of enhancing the remineralization of partially decalcified tooth structures. Topical fluorides can also recharge the fluoride content of exhausted GICs, thus converting them into fluoride reservoirs. Three types of fluoride preparations are being used for professional applications-APF, stannous fluoride and sodium fluoride. 1.23% APF gel is extensively used in dentistry especially pediatric dentistry because of their ease of application and clinical efficacy.

However, due to the high reactivity of fluoride agents used in topical fluoride treatments, there can be some potential adverse effects on various restorative materials.

Glass ionomer cements are clinically accepted preventive restorative materials because of their fluoride releasing property besides their esthetics, biocompatibility and chemical adhesion to enamel and dentin. Since they release fluoride ions, they can reduce enamel solubility and plaque formation by bacteria that initiate dental caries, thereby preventing enamel demineralization along with preventing secondary caries and caries on adjacent teeth. The evolution of high strength, high viscosity conventional GICs with improved physical properties has led to increasing clinical acceptance of these materials. The setting reaction of these materials is rapid, with the early moisture sensitivity considerably reduced and solubility in oral fluids becoming very low.

These materials can also be converted to fluoride reservoirs by subsequent topical fluoride application. [14],[15]

APF gel 1.23% (pH 3.5) was used in this study since it is recommended by American Dental Association for professionally applied topical fluoride and also is the most widely used one today. Four-minute treatment time was used as this time has been recommended for professionally applied topical fluoride gels, solution and foams.

The possible adverse effects of topical fluoride treatments on these esthetic restorative materials have been the subject of many studies during the recent past. Considerable work has been done on the effect of professionally applied APF and sodium fluoride (NaF) agents on Ceramics, composites and sealants, which revealed important structural alterations that were dependent on the fluoride agent used. [ 8],[16],[17],[18] The damage caused by APF on glass ionomer has been shown by Kramer et al. [19] who reported that an APF mouth rinse caused greater solubility of glass ionomer compared with other types of fluoride rinses following 72 h of immersion.

It has been suggested that the application of APF gel could recharge the fluoride content of exhausted GICs. [8] However, APF gel contains hydrofluoric and phosphoric acids. Phosphoric acid has the ability to etch glass particles, and hydrofluoric acid is more destructive than phosphoric acid because it can etch glass at lower temperatures. The pH of the APF gel results in the chemical erosion of the restorative materials by acid etching the surface and leaching the principle matrix-forming cations, Na, Ca, Al, and Sr ions, which also increases its fluoride release. [20]

However, erosion of GICs depends not only on the pH of the gel, but also on the complex forming ability of the particular acid present. [21] el-Badrawy et al. [22] showed that Neutral sodium fluoride had no significant effect on glass ionomer, whereas APF and nonproprietary sodium fluoride, containing phosphoric acid and citric acid were shown to cause significant dissolution of the matrix of glass ionomer. Phosphoric acid was capable of forming stable complexes with metal ions in the ionomer, resulting in greater surface erosion. Glass ionomer surface integrity is essentially destroyed due to the dissociation of individual particles from each other as the gel matrix dissolves. Neuman and Garcia-Godoy also showed that glass particles were left protruding from the cement surface after APF gel application. [23]

One of the most important physical properties that affect the long term durability of the restorations in the oral cavity is surface roughness. The increased roughness could become an area to harbor the colonization of Streptococcus mutans. Increased plaque formation has been found on conventional GICs in situ. This could potentially increase the risk of periodontal disease and dental caries, especially sub gingivally although pathogenicity of the plaque may be low. The increased roughness may be a reflection of the deterioration of the materials. Protection of the glass ionomer restorations by adding fresh cement or resin composite overlays may be considered if the restorations are not replaced. Loss of hardness of the material may contribute to the deterioration of the material in a clinical environment, including loss of anatomical form and discolorations. [24],[25],[26]

In the present study, single application of 1.23% APF gel to glass ionomers for 4 min resulted in significantly increased surface roughness that was particularly obvious with conventional glass ionomer (Fuji II) and less pronounced with high strength high viscosity glass ionomer (Fuji IX).

Earl et al. tested a number of varnishes and concluded that immediate sealing of GIC surface with an unfilled light cured bonding agent with very low viscosity appears to be most effective method of protecting the surface of newly placed GIC. [27] Serra et al. in 1994 [28] tested various surface treatment agents and concluded that nail varnish provided the best results . Unfilled resin glaze (ketac glaze) has been shown to protect glass ionomer from the erosive effect of APF. [29]

In this study, chemical cure glass ionomer varnish (Shofu, Tokyo, Japan) was used to protect the GIC surface. It was applied with a brush and allowed to dry for 15 mins following which the surface of glass ionomers were treated with 1.23% APF gel for 4 mins. The surfaces were then rinsed, dried and scanned using JEOL JSM-5600 LV SEM. The surfaces examined were found to be smooth. They showed no signs of matrix dissolution or degradation of glass ionomer particles. However areas where the varnish was absent got exposed to the APF and showed etching, thus establishing the protective effect of this varnish.


   Conclusion Top


APF gel caused erosive wear of the GIC esp. Fuji II. Hence, it is advisable to avoid the use of APF containing preparations for regular home use especially in child with glass ionomer restoration. If APF gel is indicated or preferred for professional application, it is recommended to apply glass ionomer varnish on the restored teeth prior to APF gel application.

 
   References Top

1.Croll TP, Nicholson JW. Glass ionomer cements in pediatric dentistry: Review of the literature. Pediatr Dent 2002;24:423-9.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Phillips RW. Skinners Science of Dental Materials. 9 th ed . Philadelphia: W.B.Saunders Company; 1991. p. 42-4.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Brito CR, Velasco LG, Bonini GA, Imparato JC, Raggio DP. Glass ionomer cement hardness after different materials for surface protection. J Biomed Mater Res A 2010;93:243-6.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.Hse KM, Leung SK, Wei SH. Resin-ionomer restorative materials for children: A review. Aust Dent J 1999;44:1-11.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.Upadhaya PN, Kishore G. Glass ionomer cements-The different generations. Trends Biomater Artif Organs 2005;17:43-9.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.Hatibovic-Kofman S, Koch G, Ekstrand J. Glass ionomer materials as a rechargeable fluoride-release system. Int J Paediatr Dent 1997;7:65-73.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.García-Godoy F, García-Godoy A, García-Godoy F. Effect of APF minute-foam on the surface roughness, hardness, and micromorphology of high-viscosity glass ionomers. J Dent Child (Chic) 2003;70:19-23.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.Yip HK, Lam WT, Smales RJ. Surface roughness and weight loss of esthetic restorative materials related to fluoride release and uptake. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1999;23:321-6.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.Yip KH, Peng D, Smales RJ. Effects of APF gel on the physical structure of compomers and glass ionomer cements. Oper Dent 2001;26:231-8.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.Yip HK, To WM, Smales RJ. Effects of artificial saliva and APF gel on the surface roughness of newer glass ionomer cements. Oper Dent 2004;29:661-8.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.Pearson G. Should APF gel be used on glass ionomer cements? Br Dent J 1999;187:259.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.Botta AC, Mollica FB, Ribeiro CF, de Araujo MA, Di Nicoló R, Balducc I. Influence of topical acidulated phosphate fluoride on surface roughness of human enamel and different restorative materials. Rev Odontol Cienc 2010;25:83-7.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.Díaz-Arnold AM, Wistrom DW, Swift EJ Jr. Topical fluoride and glass ionomer microhardness. Am J Dent 1995;8:134-6.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.Gao W, Smales RJ, Gale MS. Fluoride release/uptake from newer glass-ionomer cements used with the ART approach. Am J Dent 2000;13:201-4.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.Weidlich P, Miranda LA, Maltz M, Samuel SM. Fluoride release and uptake from glass ionomer cements and composite resins. Braz Dent J 2000;11:89-96.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.Garica-Godoy F, Garcia-Godoy A. Effect of APF minute-foam on the surface roughness hardness and micromorphology of high viscosity glass ionomers. J Dent Res 2000;79:539. [Abstract No. 3168].  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.Yip KH, Peng D, Smales RJ. Effect of APF gel on the physical structure of compomers and glass ionomer cements. Oper Dent 2001;25:231-8.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.Cehreli ZC, Yazici R, García-Godoy F. Effect of 1.23 percent APF gel on fluoride-releasing restorative materials. ASDC J Dent Child 2000;67:330-7, 302.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.Kramer KL, Wolff MS, Gale EN, Osborne JW. The effect of fluoride mouthrinse on solubility of cements. J Dent Res 1986;65:777.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.Crisp S, Lewis BG, Wilson AD. Characterization of glass - ionomer cements 6. A study of erosion and water absorption in both neutral and acidic media. J Dent 1980;8:68-74.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.Matsuya S, Matsuya Y, Yamamoto Y, Yamane M. Erosion process of a glass ionomer cement in organic acids. Dent Mater J 1984;3:210-9.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.el-Badrawy WA, McComb D, Wood RE. Effect of home-use fluoride gels on glass ionomer and composite restorations. Dent Mater 1993;9:63-7.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.Neuman E, Garcia-Godoy F. Effect of APF gel on a glass ionomer cement: An SEM study. ASDC J Dent Child 1992;59:289-95.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.van Dijken J, Persson S, Sjöström S. Presence of Streptococcus mutans and lactobacilli in saliva and on enamel, glass ionomer cement, and composite resin surfaces. Scand J Dent Res 1991;99:13-9.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.Hicks MJ, Flaitz CM, Silverstone LM. Secondary caries formation in vitro around glass ionomer restorations. Quintessence Int 1986;17:527-32.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.Smales RJ, Nixon KC, Joyce KP. Effects of subgingival restorations in beagle dogs. Part I: Plaque formation. J Prosthet Dent 1979;41:401-10.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.Earl MS, Mount GJ, Hume WR. The effect of varnishes and other surface treatments on water movement across the glass ionomer cement surface. II. Aust Dent J 1989;34:326-9.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.Serra MC, Navarro MF, Freitas SF, Carvalho RM, Cury JA, Retief DH. Glass ionomer cement surface protection. Am J Dent 1994;7:203-6.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.Triana RT, Millan CP, Barrio JG, Garcia-Godoy F. Effect of APF gel on light-cured glass ionomer cements: An SEM study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1994;18:109-13.  Back to cited text no. 29
    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Ektah Khosla
Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Mar Baselious Dental College, Kothamangalam
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.142545

Rights and Permissions


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
 
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  
 


    Abstract
    Materials and me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1863    
    Printed42    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded115    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal