Evaluation of Solubility and Microleakage of Glass Carbomer Sealant

This study was carried out to evaluate and compare solubility and microleakage of the newly introduced moisture tolerant glass carbomer sealant. Study design: For evaluation of solubility, 20 specimens of glass carbomer and conventional glass ionomer were prepared and immersed in artificial saliva of pH 4 and 6 for seven days. The difference between initial and final weight was calculated. For evaluation of microleakage, glass carbomer was compared with a conventional resin sealant. 20 premolar teeth indicated for orthodontic extraction were collected and divided into two groups and the respective sealants were applied. It was subjected to thermocycling and then kept immersed in methylene blue for 24 hours. Dye penetration was scored. Results: The glass carbomer specimens were less soluble than the conventional glass ionomer at both pH values. There was no significant difference in the microleakage. Conclusion: Being moisture resistant, glass carbomer can be used as an alternative fissure sealant material; especially in young children with partially erupted teeth and where obtaining moisture control is difficult.

solubility, marginal leakage, glass carbomer

1. Hicks MJ, Flaitz CM, Garcia-Godoy F. Fluoride-releasing sealant and caries-like enamel lesion formation in vitro. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 24(3):215-9, 2000.

2. Ganesh M, Tandon S. Clinical evaluation of FUJI VII sealant material. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 31(1):52-7,2006.

3. Bravo M, Montero J, Bravo JJ, Baca P, Llodra JC. Sealant and fluoride varnish in caries: a randomized trial. J Dent Res. 84:1138–43, 2005.

4. Braham RL, Morris ME. Textbook of pediatric dentistry. Second edition, CB Publishers and distributor, 1990.

5. Van Duinen R. The next step in restoratives. The Dentist 2007;25.

6. Cehreli SB, Tirali RE, Yalcinkaya Z, Cehreli ZC. Microleakage of newly developed glass carbomer cement in primary teeth. Eur J Dent. 7(1):15-21,2013.

7. Asselin ME, Fortin D, Sitbon Y, Rompré PH. Marginal microleakage of a sealant applied to permanent enamel: evaluation of 3 application protocols. Pediatr Dent. 30(1):29-33, 2008.

8. Umino A, Nikaido T, Tsuchiya S, Foxton RM, Tagami J. Confocal laser scanning microscopic observations of secondary caries inhibition around different types of luting cements. Am J Dent. 18(4):245-50, 2005.

9. Fusayama T, Katayori T, Nomoto S. Corrosion and microhardness J Dent Res. 42:1183, 1963.

10. Chaitra T R, Subba Reddy V V, Devarasa G M, Ravishankar T L. Flowable resin used as a sealant in molars using conventional, enameloplasty and fissurotomy techniques: An in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 28:145-50, 2010.

11. Lucas ME, Arita K, Nishino M. Toughness, bonding and fluoride-release properties of hydroxyapatite-added glass ionomer cement. Biomaterials 24:3787–94, 2003.

12. Van Duinen RN, Davidson CL, De Gee AJ, Feilzer AJ. In situ transformation of glass-ionomer into an enamel-like material. Am J Dent. 17:223–7, 2004.

13. Zainuddin N, Karpukhina N, Law RV, Hill RG. Characterisation of a remineralising Glass Carbomer® ionomer cement by MAS-NMR spectroscopy. Dent Mater. 28(10):1051-8, 2012.

14. Koenraads H, Van der Kroon G, Frencken JE. Compressive strength of two newly developed glass-ionomer materials for use with the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) approach in class II cavities. Dent Mater. 25(4):551-6, 2009.

15. Mhosaverinia A, Ansari S, Moshaverinia M, Roohpour N, Darr JA, Rehman I. Effects of incorporation of hydroxyapatite and fluoroapatite nanobioceramics into conventional glass ionomer cements (GIC). Acta Biomater. 4:432–40, 2008.

16. Wison AD. Specification test for the solubility and disintegration of dental cements: a critical evaluation of its meaning. J Dent Res. 55(5):721-9,1976.

17. Kanchanavasita W, Anstice HM, Pearson GJ. Water sorption characteristics of resin-modified glassionomer cements. Biomaterials 18: 343-349, 1997.

18. Meşe A, Burrow MF, Tyas MJ. Sorption and solubility of luting cements in different solutions. Denr Mater J. 27(5):702-9,2008.

19. Yap A, Lee CM. Water sorption and solubility of resin-modified polyalkenoate cements. J Oral Rehabil. 24: 310-314, 1997.

20. Bertacchini SM, Abate PF, Blank A, Baglieto MF, Macchi RL. Solubility and fluoride release in ionomers and compomers. Quintessence Int.30:193-197,1999.

21. Kao EC. Influence of food-simulating solvents on resin composites and glass-ionomer restorative cement. Dent Mater. 5:201-208, 1989.

22. Levine MJ, Aquirre A, Hatton MN, Tabak LA. Artificial salivas: Present and future. J Dent Res. 66:693-698, 1987.

23. Pluim LJ, Arends J, Havinga P, Jongebloed WL, Stokroos I. Quantitative cement solubility experiments in vivo. J Oral Rehabil 11:171-179,1984.

24. Yesil Duymus Z. An investigation of pH changes of various cements. Quintessence Int. 35:753-757, 2004.

25. Walls AWG, McCabe JF, Murray JJ. The effect of the variation in pH of the eroding solution upon the erosion resistance of glass polyalkenoate ( ionomer ) cements. Br Dent J. 164:141-144, 1988.

26. Hadi MR, Rahmatallah SS, Al-Ameer S. Water sorption of newly formulated resin-modified and conventional glass ionomer cements. J Bagh College Dentistry. 22(4): 28-31, 2010.

27. Chen X, Cuijpers V, Fan M, Frencken JE. Marginal leakage of two newer glass-ionomer-based sealant materials assessed using micro-CT. J Dent. 38(9):731-5, 2010.

28. Subramaniam P, Babu KL, Naveen HK. Effect of tooth preparation on sealant success--an in vitro study. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 33(4):325-31, 2009.

29. Menne-Happ U, Ilie N. Effect of gloss and heat on the mechanical behaviour of a glass carbomer cement. J Dent. 41(3):223-30, 2013