Article Data

  • Views 768
  • Dowloads 183

Original Research

Open Access

Biocompatibility of a Conventional Glass Ionomer, Ceramic Reinforced Glass Ionomer, Giomer and Resin Composite to Fibroblasts: In vitro Study

  • Tamilselvam S1
  • Divyanand MJ1
  • Neelakantan P1,*,

1Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha University, Chennai, India.

DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.37.4.98h23631v8734478 Vol.37,Issue 4,July 2013 pp.403-406

Published: 01 July 2013

*Corresponding Author(s): Neelakantan P E-mail:


This aim of this study was at compare the fibroblast cytotoxicicty of four restorative materials - a conventional glass ionomer cement (GC Fuji Type II GIC), a ceramic reinforced glass ionomer cement (Amalgomer), a giomer (Beautifil II) and a resin composite (Filtek Z350) at three different time periods (24, 48 and 72 hours). Method: The succinyl dehydrogenase (MTT) assay was employed. Cylindrical specimens of each material (n=15) were prepared and stored in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle medium, following which L929 fibroblasts were cultured in 96 well plates. After 24 hours of incubation, the MTT assay was performed to detect the cell viability. The method was repeated after 48 and 72 hours. The impact of materials and exposure times on cytotoxicity of fibroblasts was statistically analyzed using two way ANOVA (P=0.05). Results: Both time and material had an impact on cell viability, with giomer demonstrating the maximum cell viability at all time periods. The cell viability in the giomer group was significantly different from all other materials at 24 and 72 hours (P<0.05), while at 48 hours giomer was significantly different only with resin composite (P<0.05). Conclusions: Giomers showed better biocompatibility than conventional and ceramic reinforced glass ionomer cements and, resin composite. Ceramic reinforced glass ionomer demonstrated superior biocompatibility compared to conventional glass ionomer.


Biocompatibility, fibroblast, glass ionomer cement, giomer, resin composite

Cite and Share

Tamilselvam S,Divyanand MJ,Neelakantan P. Biocompatibility of a Conventional Glass Ionomer, Ceramic Reinforced Glass Ionomer, Giomer and Resin Composite to Fibroblasts: In vitro Study. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2013. 37(4);403-406.


1. Geurtsen W. Substances released from dental resin composites and glass ionomer cements. Eur J Oral Sci; 106: 687-95. 1996.

2. Sainulabdeen S, Neelakantan P, Ramesh S, Subbarao CV. Antibacterial activity of triclosan incorporated glass ionomer cements – An in vitro pilot study. J Clin Pediatr Dent; 35: 157–62. 2010.

3. Chang HJ, Wu CM, Chang YC, Fanchiang JC, Shieh DB, Wong TY. Collagen enhances compatibility and strength of glass ionomers. J Dent Res; 88: 449-54. 2009.

4. Gurunathan D and Tandon S. A clinical evaluation of two glass ionomer cements in primary molars using atraumatic restorative treatment technique in India: 1 year follow up. Int J Paediatr Dent; 20: 410– 18. 2010.

5. Wang Y, Darvell BW. Hertzian load-bearing capacity of a ceramic - reinforced glass ionomer cement stored wet and dry. Dent Mater; 25: 952-55. 2009.

6. Toshiyuki I, Al-Naimi OT, Carrick TE, Yoshiyama M, McCabe JF. Fluoride release from aged resin composites containing fluoridated glass filler. Dent Mater; 21: 1033–38. 2005.

7. Wataha JC, Hanks CT, Strawn SE, Fat JC. Cytotoxicity of components of resins and other dental restorative materials. J Oral Rehab; 21: 453-62. 1994.

8. Quinlan CA, Zisterer DM, Tipton KF, O’Sullivan MI. In vitro cytotoxicity of a composite resin and compomer. Int Endod J; 35: 47-55. 2002.

9. Moharamzadeh K, Van Noort R, Brook IM, Scutt AM. Cytotoxicity of resin monomers on human gingival fibroblasts and HaCaT keratinocytes. Dent Mater; 23: 40-4. 2007.

10. Meryon SD, Stephens PG, Browne RM. A comparison of the in vitro cytotoxicity of two glass-ionomer cements. J Dent Res; 62: 769-73. 1983.

11. Caughman WF, Caughman GB, Dominy WT, Schuster GS. Glass ionomer and composite resin cements: effects on oral cells. J Prosthet Dent; 63: 513-21. 1990.

12. Yan F, Xiao Y, Li H, Haase H, Bartold PM. A comparison of the effects of two kinds of glass-ionomer cement on human gingival fibroblast attachment, proliferation and morphology in vitro. J Int Acad Periodontol; 2: 14-8. 2000.

13. Yoshimine Y, Yamamoto M, Ogasawara T, Koishi K, Tanabe K, Hashiguchi I, Akamine A. In vitro evaluation of the cytocompatibility of a glass-ionomer cement sealer. J Endod; 29: 453-55. 2003.

14. Telli C, Serper A, Dogan AL, Guc D. Evaluation of the cytotoxicity of calcium phosphate root canal sealers by MTT assay. J Endod; 25: 811–13. 1999.

15. Itota T, Carrick TE, Yoshiyama M, McCabe JF. Fluoride release and recharge in giomer, compomer and resin composite. Dent Mater; 20: 789- 95. 2004.

16. Vermeersch G, Leloup G, Vreven J. Fluoride release from glass-ionomer cements, compomers and resin composites. J Oral Rehab; 28: 26–32. 2001.

17. Fujimoto Y, Iwasa M, Murayama R, Miyazaki M, Nagafuji A, Nakatsuka T. Detection of ions released from S-PRG fillers and their modulation effect. Dent Mater J; 29: 392–97. 2010.

18. Li P, Ohtsuki C, Kokubo T, Nakanishi K, Soga N, Nakamura T, Yamamuro T. Effects of ions in aqueous media on hydroxyapatite induction by silica gel and its relevance to bioactivity of bioactive glasses and glass- ceramics. J Appl Biomater; 4: 221-29. 1993.

19. Hatton PV, Hurrell-Gillingham K, Brook IM. Biocompatibility of glass – ionomer bone cements. J Dent; 34: 598-601. 2006.

20. Mousavinasab SM, Meyers I. Fluoride release by glass ionomer cements, compomer and giomer. J Dent Res ; 6: 75-81. 2009.

21. Xie D, Chung I D, Wu W, Mays J. Synthesis and evaluation of HEMA-free glass-ionomer cements for dental applications. Dent Mater; 20: 470–78. 2004.

22. Adams AM, Soames JV, Searle RF. Cytotoxicity studies of dental restorative materials using human periodontal ligament cells in vitro. Int Endod J; 27: 171-77. 1994.

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.

Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.

JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Scopus: CiteScore 2.0 (2022) Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.

Submission Turnaround Time