Affiliation:
1. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, BhaBha Dental College, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India
2. Director, Prevest Research Institute, Prevest Denpro Limited, Jammu, India
3. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Rural Dental College, PIMS loni, Wardha, Maharashtra, India
4. Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Sharad Pawar Dental College, DMIHER, Wardha, Maharashtra, India
Abstract
Aim:
To evaluate the efficacy of incorporated novel additives in Glass Ionomer Cement to ameliorate biocompatibility and mechanical properties.
Introduction:
Though Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC) has multiple advantages, it is not strong enough for medical applications, and its biocompatibility is questionable. To improve biocompatibility and its mechanical properties, a study was performed to investigate the potential benefits of adding graphene, carbon nanotubes, hydroxyapatite, and bioactive glass to GIC. The objective was to enhance both the mechanical properties and biocompatibility of GIC.
Material and Method:
Modified Glass Ionomer Cement was prepared by creating five groups. Hydroxyapatite, multi-walled carbon nanotubes, graphene, and bioactive glass were incorporated in a 10:1 weight ratio, respectively. Group 5 was designated as the control group and used Fuji Type II GIC. After preparing 90 samples, they were kept in deionized water for a day and then evaluated their compressive strength, microhardness, and diametral tensile strength, and also checked their in vitro cytotoxicity by direct contact with L929 mammalian fibroblast cells.
Statistical Analysis:
The data were examined using mean and standard deviation descriptive statistics. The comparative evaluation was done via Tukey HSD test and one-way ANOVA using S.P.S.S. software.
Result:
It showed that Group 3 had better results in compressive strength (144.478+- 3.989), diametral tensile strength (20.29+- 0.8601), and microhardness (131+-3.536) when compared with other groups while in the biocompatibility (viability %) Group 1 [82.55], Group 3 [76.49], Group 4 [87.63], while Group 2[58.02].
Conclusion:
Group 3 has better physical properties in microhardness, diametral tensile strength, and compressive strength, than the other groups. In Biocompatibility, Group 1, Group 3, Group 4, and Group 5 were noncytotoxic at the same time multi-walled carbon nanotubes group (Group 2) had cytotoxic potential.