Mechanical and optical properties of conventional restorative glassionomer cements - a systematic review

Authors

  • Rafael Menezes-Silva Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru, Departamento de Dentística, Endodontia e Materiais Odontológicos
  • Renata Nunes Cabral Universidade de Brasília, Departamento de Odontologia
  • Renata Corrêa Pascotto Universidade Estadual de Maringá, Departamento de Odontologia
  • Ana Flávia Sanches Borges Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru, Departamento de Dentística, Endodontia e Materiais Odontológicos https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0349-2050
  • Carolina Castro Martins Faculdade de Odontologia da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Departamento de Odontopediatria e Ortodontia
  • Maria Fidela de Lima Navarro Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru, Departamento de Dentística, Endodontia e Materiais Odontológicos https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2871-1077
  • Sharanbir K. Sidhu Queen Mary University of London, Institute of Dentistry
  • Soraya Coelho Leal Universidade de Brasília, Departamento de Odontologia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0357

Keywords:

Glass-ionomer cement, Mechanical properties, Optical properties, Restoration

Abstract

Objectives: To perform a systematic review of test methodologies on conventional restorative glass-ionomer cement (GIC) materials for mechanical and optical properties to compare the results between different GICs. Material and Methods: Screening of titles and abstracts, data extraction, and quality assessments of full-texts were conducted in search for in vitro studies on conventional GICs that follow the relevant specifications of ISO standards regarding the following mechanical and optical properties: compressive strength, flexural strength, color, opacity and radiopacity. Sources: The Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS), Brazilian Bibliography of Dentistry (BBO) databases from Latin-American and Caribbean System on Health Sciences Information (BIREME) and PubMed/Medline (US National Library of Medicine - National Institutes of Health) databases were searched regardless of language. Altogether, 1146 in vitro studies were selected. Two reviewers independently selected and assessed the articles according to pre-established inclusion/exclusion criteria. Among all the properties investigated, only one study was classified as being of fair quality that tested compressive strength and was included. It was observed that many authors had not strictly followed ISO recommendations and that, for some properties (diametral tensile strength and microhardness), there are no guidelines provided. Conclusions: It was not possible to compare the results for the mechanical and optical properties of conventional restorative GICs due to the lack of standardization of studies.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2019-06-05

Issue

Section

Systematic Review