Oral Sciences n3 Braz J Oral Sci. 9(2):77-80 Original Article Braz J Oral Sci. April/June 2010 - Volume 9, Number 2 “In vitro” surface roughness of different glass ionomer cements indicated for ART restorations Marília Gabriela Corrêa Momesso1 , Renata Cristiane da Silva2, José Carlos Pettorossi Imparato2, Celso Molina3, Ricardo Scarparo Navarro4, Sidney José Lima Ribeiro5 1Reserach Fellow, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Camilo Castelo Branco University, Brazil 2Associate Professor, Department of Preventive Dentistry, Camilo Castelo Branco University, Brazil 3Professor, Institute of Environmental Sciences, Chemical and Pharmaceutical, University of São Paulo, Diadema - SP, Brazil 4Associate Professor, Department of Dental Materials and Restorative Dentistry, Camilo Castelo Branco University, Brazil 5Professor, Institute of Chemistry of Araraquara, São Paulo State University, Brazil Correspondence to: Marília Gabriela Corrêa Momesso Rua Tomé Portes, 313 - Parada Inglesa – São Paulo – SP – Brazil. CEP: 02241-010. E-mail: ma_momesso@hotmail.com Received for publication: August 04, 2009 Accepted: May 12, 2010 Abstract Aim: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the surface roughness of three glass ionomer cements (GICs) indicated for ART restorations. Methods: Ten cylindrical specimens of three commercial glass ionomers cements (Vidrion R - S.S. White, Maxxion R - FGM and Vitromolar DFL) were prepared (n=30) without surface finishing or protection. Twenty-four hours after preparation, the surface roughness measurements were obtained as the mean of three readings of the surface of each specimen by profilometry. The roughness values (Ra, µm) were subjected to one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test (p<0.05). Results: No statistically significant differences were observed between Vidrion R (0.18 ± 0.05) and Vitromolar (0.21 ± 0.05), whereas Maxxion R presented significantly higher roughness values than those of the other materials. Conclusions: It may be concluded that characteristics of particle size and composition of the different GICs affected their surface roughness 24 h after preparation. Keywords: roughness, profilometry, glass ionomer cements, ART, restorative dental materials. Introduction When first introduced in the 1970’s, glass ionomer cements (GICs) were used as a lining material or as the basis for restorations1. However, alterations to its composition and the powder/liquid ratio affected their mechanical properties, handling time, setting time, consistence and wear, improving the feasibility and application of these conventional fast-setting ionomeric cements in clinical practice. These materials are particularly effective in the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) and in places lacking the conventional infrastructure needed for clinical treatment1-5. The properties of GICs, comprise a coefficient of thermal expansion similar to that of dentin2,6-7, lower volumetric contraction during the setting reaction7, chemical adherence to the dental strucutre2,6-8, biocompatibilty with the pulp tissue7,9, fluoride release and cariogenic action2,6-8,10.11, and antimicrobial activity5,11. However, bond strength and resistance to wear are rather limited, especially for conventional restorative GICs and fast-setting or high-viscosity GICs, in comparison to amalgam and modern resin composite materials. These properties are also affected by their composition and the acid-base reactions between the inorganic portion of the powder and the organic portion of the carboxylic acids used, the size and number of vitreous particles, and the number and size of bubbles present in the material12-14. 78 Braz J Oral Sci. 9(2):77-80 Brand Manufacturer Powder-liquid ratio Basic composition Particle size Vidrion R Vitromolar Maxxion R SS White Artigos Dentários Ltda(Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil) DFL Indústria e Comércio Ltda(Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil) FGM Produtos Odontológicos (Joinville, SC, Brazil) 1:1 1:1 1:1 Sodium fluorosilicate, calcium aluminum, barium sulfate, polyacrylic acid, pigments, tartaric acid, distilled water Aluminum and barium silicate, dehydrated polyacrylic acid, ferric oxide, polyacrylic acid, tartaric acid, distilled water Fluoraluminosilicate glass, calcium fluoride, water <75µm <10µm ±12.5µm Table 1 – Brand, Manufacturer and powder-liquid ratio of the materials used. *Information from manufacturers Mair et al.15 defines wear as the last consequence of the interaction between the surfaces, leading to the steady removal of the material. Clinically, surface roughness must be observed, as it plays a decisive role in the retention and accumulation of dental biofilm16. Surface roughness has been used as a criterion to foresee and evaluate the deterioration of restorations made from different materials. While surface roughness of aesthetic materials in vivo is put down to mechanical abrasion, attrition and erosion, most of the current in vitro studies have evaluated surface roughness after mechanical abrasion and polishing16. Bollen et al.17 reported that, on a rough surface, the microorganisms are less exposed to the dislocation forces and have the necessary time to adhere to this structure. The surface and the border of the restorative materials, when colonized by cariogenic bacteria, especially Streptococcus mutans, favor the development of caries and future damage to the dentin-pulp complex10-11,18. Profilometry is the measurement of the surface height variation of an object. It can be used to determine measurements of surfaces, shape and roughness. This latter requires instruments with both high lateral (x axis) and vertical resolution (z axis). This in vitro study used profilometry to evaluate the surface roughness of a conventional restorative GIC and two fast-setting GICs, 24 h after preparation of the materials. Material and methods The glass ionomer cements used in this study are presented in Table 1. Ten disc-shaped specimens of each material were fabricated using a matrix with diameter of 6.0 mm and a 4.0-mm-deep cavity. The materials prepared following the manufacturer’s instructions by a previously calibrated operator at room temperature (approximately 23°C) and 50% relative air humidity (Humidity/Temperature Meter – HT – 3003 – LT Lutron). The matrix was placed on a glass plate with a polyester strip (K-dent, Quimidrol) interposed between the matrix and the glass plate. The materials were mixed and inserted in the matrix cavity using a Centrix injector until it was completely filled, and was then covered with another polyester strip and a glass plate18-21. A uniform pressure was applied and excess material was removed, leveling of the cement with the top of the matrix. After 10 min, the polyester strips were removed, and the specimens were stored in 100% humidity, without any surface protection, finishing or polishing. After 24 h of storage under these conditions, surface roughness was evaluated using the Form Talysurf Series 2 profilometer22. The Form Talysurf series 2 instrument consists of a mechanical profilometer in which a mechanical transducer is dragged across a surface and its movement in a vertical direction is recorded to obtain a surface profile22. For every reading made, the mean roughness value (Ra, mm) was represented by the arithmetic mean between the peaks and valleys registered, after the needle of the profilometer had scanned a stretch of 3.1mm in length, with a cut-off of 0.25mm to maximize the filtering and the undulation on the surface. Each surface was read three times, always with the needle scanning the geometric center of the specimen, starting from three different points13,21. The mean value of the three readings yielded the mean value of the roughness of each specimen. Subsequently, a 3D image (Form Talysurf Series 2 profilometer) of the surface profile of the specimens was obtained. The roughness mean values (Ra, µm) were subjected to one-way ANOVA) and Tukey’s test at a 5% significance level. Results The roughness mean values (Ra, µm) and standard deviations obtained for the tested materials were as follows: Vidrion R: 0.18 (0.06), Vitromolar: 0.21 (0.06), and Maxxion R: 0.73 (0.38). The one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s showed that Maxxion R presented the highest roughness mean values and differed significantly from the other materials (p<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference (p>0.05) between Vidrion R and Vitromolar. Fig. 1. 3D image of the profile of the glass ionomer cement Vidrion R. “In vitro” surface roughness of different glass ionomer cements indicated for ART restorations 79 Braz J Oral Sci. 9(2):77-80 Fig. 3. 3D image of the profile of the glass ionomer cement Maxxion R. Fig. 2. 3D image of the profile of the glass ionomer cement Vitromolar. Discussion GICs have becoming widely used in dentistry due to their properties of adherence, biocompatibility, aesthetics, fluoride release and similar linear thermal expansion to dentin, and because of their clinical uses in both primary and permanent teeth 1-2,4-9. As a result, the study of their biomechanical properties and clinical applications is important for the evaluation and prediction of the clinical behavior of these cements. According to the methodology adopted in this study, the specimens were kept for 24 h in an environment where the relative humidity of the air was about 100%, without any protection, finishing system or polishing. Sidhu et al.23 reported that the cover or finishing used in clinical procedures may veil the characteristics of the material in laboratory experimentations. The best evenness of the surface was attained when the materials were cured in contact with the polyester strip18-21. While the setting reaction of GICs is taking place, links are formed between the carboxylic acids (liquid portion) and the alumina cations and/or the inorganic part yielded by the powder (solid portions). These reactions play a role in forming the ionomer, while the others act as reinforcement particles12,24. According to the present study, the surface roughness mean values for the conventional restorative GIC (Vidrion R) proved to be lower when compared to the other ionomeric cements. According to Rios et al. 25, the GICs, whose consistence is more fluid during handling and insertion, produce a decreased surface roughness, which may be caused by the greater portion of its gel matrix. Mair et al.15 observed that the distribution and morphology of the inorganic particles are an important factor in determining surface roughness. The lack of significant differences between Vidrion R and Vitromolar might be attributed to the similar size and location of the inorganic particles in these materials, despite the differences in their consistency and mechanical properties4 Although Vidrion R presented the lowest roughness mean values in the present study, the worse mechanical properties and high solubility of this material restricts its use in the ART technique4,25-26. On the other hand, the conventional high-viscosity GIC, which present better mechanical properties and ART indication, presented higher roughness mean values in this study, especially Maxxion R. It is important to point out that, as the surface hardness of GICs is inversely proportional to its wear, the conventional high- viscosity GICs are harder and display reduced surface wear, preserving the initial roughness pattern12,26-27. The exception was observed for Maxxion R, suggesting that this behavior may be related to the size and shape of glass particles on its surface21. Leitão and Hegdahl 28 reported that the surface is considered rough when it bears peaks and valleys of great amplitude with reduced undulation. The value of the surface roughness (Ra) considered critical for the retention and adherence of microorganisms is equal to 0.2 µm17. In this study, two GICs yielded results aligned with the parameters acceptable for surface roughness: Vidrion R (0.18 ± 0.05) and Vitromolar (0.21 ± 0.05), showing evidence of a greater susceptibility to biofilm retention, where the value of 0.2 µm is used as a reference. In contrast, the surface roughness of Maxxion R (0.73 ± 0.38) was much higher than expected, increasing its potential for the adherence of microorganisms. Figures 1-3 show the roughness 3-D images obtained for each material used in this study. It is possible to observe that Figures 1 and 2 illustrate a smoother surface than Figure 3. These results are in agreement with the roughness values obtained. The study of surface roughness is important due to the fact that this property affects light reflection, color fading, appearance of cracks and aesthetics, in addition to favoring biofilm accumulation13,17. Increased surface roughness results in substantial biofilm accumulation, thus aggravating the risk of carious lesion and periodontal disease17,25. Since the surface roughness of GIC must be carefully observed when it comes to choosing the material, it is vital for the professional to analyze laboratory and clinical requisites such as surface microhardness, mechanical resistance, solubility, setting time and work, ease of handling, in addition to location and extension of the cavities in relation to the chewing load and, finally, the clinical durability of the restoration. References 1. Sasaki MT, Silva RCSP, Araújo MAM, Krabbe DFM, Damião AJ. Avaliação da rugosidade superficial de cimentos de ionômero de vidro com diferentes sistemas de acabamento e polimento. Rev Odontol UNESP. 2000; 29: 81-92. 2. Berg JH. Glass ionomer cement. Pediatr Dent. 2002; 24: 430-8. 3. De Witte MJC, Maeyer EAP, Verbeeck RMH. Surface roughening of glass ionomer cements by neutral NaF solutions. Biomaterials. 2003; 24: 1995- 2000. 4. Raggio DP, Rocha RO, Imparato JCP. Avaliaçäo da microinfiltraçäo de cinco cimentos de ionômero de vidro utilizados no tratamento restaurador atraumático (TRA). J Bras Odontopediatr Odontol Bebe. 2002; 5: 370-7. “In vitro” surface roughness of different glass ionomer cements indicated for ART restorations 80 Braz J Oral Sci. 9(2):77-80 5. Frencken JE, Van´t Hof MA, Van Amerogen WE, Holmgren CJ. Effectiveness of single surface ART restorations in the permanent dentition: a meta- analysis. J Dent Res. 2004; 83: 120-3. 6. Cole BOI, Welbury RR. The atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) technique: does it have a place in everyday practice? Dent Update. 2000; 27: 118-23. 7. Hse KMY, Leung SK, Wei SHY. Resin-ionomer restorative materials for children: a review. Aust Dent J. 1999; 44: 1-11. 8. Mjör IA, Gordan VV. A review of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART). Int Dent J. 1999; 49: 127-31. 9. Yip H-K, Peng D, Smales RJ. Effects of APF gel on the physical structure of compomers and glass ionomer cements. Oper Dent. 2001; 26: 231-8. 10. Serra MC, Cury JA. The in vitro effect of glass-ionomer cement restoration on enamel subjected to a demineralization and remineralization model. Quintessence Int. 1992; 23: 143-7. 11. Van Amerongen, WE. Dental Caries under Glass Ionomer Restorations. J Public Health Dent. 1996; 56: 150-4. 12. Xie D, Brantley WA, Culbertson BM, Wang G. Mechanical properties and microstructures of glass-ionomer cements. Dent Mater. 2000; 16: 129-38. 13. Turssi CP, Magalhães CS, Serra MC, Rodrigues Jr AL. Surface roughness assessment of resin-based materials during brushing preceded by pH- cycling simulations. Oper Dent. 2001; 26: 576-84. 14. Hurrell-Gillingham K, Reaney IM, Miller CA, Crawford A, Hatton PV. Devitrification of ionomer glass and its effect on the in vitro biocompatibility of glass-ionomer cements. Biomaterials. 2003; 24: 3153-60. 15. Mair LH, Stolarski TA, Vowles RW, Lloyd CH. Wear, mechanisms, manifestations and measurement. Report of a workshop. J Dent. 1996; 24: 141-8. 16. Yip H-K, Lam WTC, Smales RJ. Surface roughness and weight loss esthetic restorative materials related to fluoride release and uptake. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1999; 23: 321-6. 17. Bollen CML, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater. 1997; 13: 258-69. 18. Serra MC, Navarro MFL, Freitas SFT, Carvalho RM, Cury JA, Retief DH. Glass ionomer cement surface protection. Am J Dent. 1994; 7: 203-6. 19. Pedrini D, Gaetti-Jardim Jr E, Mori GG. Influência da aplicação de flúor sobre a rugosidade superficial do ionômero de vidro Vitremer e adesão microbiana a este material. Pesq Odontol Bras. 2001; 15: 70-6. 20. Pedrini D, Candido MSM, Rodrigues Jr AL. Analysis of surface roughness of glass-ionomer cements and compomer. J Oral Rehabil. 2003; 30: 714-9. 21. Silva RC, Zuanon ACC. Surface roughness of glass ionomer cements indicated for atraumatic restorative treatment (ART). Braz Dent J. 2006; 17: 106-9. 22. Exploring surface texture: a fundamental guide to the measurement of surface finish. Leicester, England: Taylor Hobson Ltd; 2003. 23. Sidhu SK, Sherriff M, Watson TF. In vivo changes in roughness of resin- modified glass ionomer materials. Dent Mater. 1997; 13: 208-13. 24. Pelka M, Elbert J, Schneider H, Krämer N, Petschelt A. Comparison of two and threee body wear of glass ionomers and composites. Eur J Oral Sci. 1996; 4: 132-7. 25. Rios D, Honório HM, Araújo PA, Machado MAAM. Wear and superficial roughness of glass ionomer cements used as sealants, after simulated toothbrushing. Braz Oral Res. 2002; 16: 343-8. 26. Raggio DP, Bönecker M, Imparato JCP, Weiner A, De Gee A, Van Amerogen WE. Dureza Knoop de cimentos de ionômero de vidro indicados para o tratamento restaurador atraumático (TRA). Rev Ibero Am Odontopediatr Odontol Bebe. 2006; 10: 152-7. 27. Peutzfeldt A, Garcia-Godoy F, Asmussen E. Surface hardness and wear of glass-ionomer and compomers. Am J Dent. 1997; 10(1): 15-7. 28. Leitão J, Hegdahl T. On the measuring of roughness. Acta Odontol Scand. 1981; 39(6): 379-84. “In vitro” surface roughness of different glass ionomer cements indicated for ART restorations