Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rngvg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T14:44:31.903Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effect of nanohydroxyapatite, antibiotic, and mucosal defensive agent on the mechanical and thermal properties of glass ionomer cements for special needs patients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2018

Manila Chieruzzi
Affiliation:
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, UdR INSTM, University of Perugia, Terni 05100, Italy
Stefano Pagano*
Affiliation:
Department of Biomedical and Surgical Sciences, School of Medicine, Odontostomatological University Centre: Chair Prof. Stefano Cianetti, University of Perugia, Perugia 06156, Italy
Guido Lombardo
Affiliation:
Department of Biomedical and Surgical Sciences, School of Medicine, Odontostomatological University Centre: Chair Prof. Stefano Cianetti, University of Perugia, Perugia 06156, Italy
Lorella Marinucci
Affiliation:
Department of Experimental Medicine Section of Biosciences and Medical Embriology, University of Perugia, Perugia 06156, Italy
José M. Kenny
Affiliation:
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, UdR INSTM, University of Perugia, Terni 05100, Italy
Luigi Torre
Affiliation:
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, UdR INSTM, University of Perugia, Terni 05100, Italy
Stefano Cianetti
Affiliation:
Department of Biomedical and Surgical Sciences, School of Medicine, Odontostomatological University Centre: Chair Prof. Stefano Cianetti, University of Perugia, Perugia 06156, Italy
*
a) Address all correspondence to this author. e-mail: stefano.pagano@unipg.it

Abstract

Special needs patients often require specific dental treatments and modified restorative materials that reduce clinical discomfort. Starting from glass ionomer cements (GICs), some different fillers were added to improve their mechanical and clinical performances. The effect of nanohydroxyapatite, antibiotic, and mucosal defensive agent on the mechanical and thermal properties of GICs was investigated. Compressive tests, calorimetric analysis, and morphological investigation were conducted. The middle percentages of fillers increased the elastic modulus while the highest decreases are recorded for highest percentages. Filler and environment also influence the compressive strengths and toughness. The introduction of fillers led to a reduction of the enthalpy with a maximum decrease with the middle percentage. The morphological characterization showed a good dispersion of the fillers. The filler percentages should be selected with a compromise between the elastic modulus, the compressive strength, and the curing time. Obtaining new materials with good clinical and mechanical properties can represent an innovative aspect of this work with positive implication in clinical practice, mainly in uncollaborative patients in which the use of traditional protocols is problematic.

Information

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2018 
Figure 0

TABLE I. GIC samples formulations.

Figure 1

FIG. 1. DSC results of dry GIC samples with: (a) HA, (b) AB, and (c) MDA.

Figure 2

TABLE II. DSC results of dry GIC samples.

Figure 3

FIG. 2. Stress–strain curves obtained for the GIC samples with (a and b) HA, (c and d) AB, and (e and f) MDA in dry and wet conditions, respectively.

Figure 4

TABLE III. Mechanical properties of dry and wet GIC samples.

Figure 5

FIG. 3. Compressive strength of GIC samples in wet and dry conditions with (a) HA, (b) AB, and (c) MDA.

Figure 6

FIG. 4. Toughness of GIC samples in wet and dry conditions with (a) HA, (b) AB, and (c) MDA.

Figure 7

FIG. 5. GIC samples at (a) 1000× and (b) 10,000× (the white arrows indicate the imprints of the filler and the black arrows indicate the voids in the cement); HA at (c) 10,000× and (d) 25,000×; antibiotic at (e) 100× and (f) 25,000×.

Figure 8

FIG. 6. SEM micrographs of GIC with (a) 2 wt% HA; (b) 4 wt% HA; (c) 6 wt% HA. The circles indicate some of the zones with HA nanoparticles (10,000×). SEM micrographs of GIC with (d) 1.5 wt% AB; (e) 3 wt% AB; (f) 4.5 wt% AB (100×). SEM micrographs of GIC with (g) 2 wt% MDA; (h) 4 wt% MDA; (i) 6 wt% MDA (10,000×).

Figure 9

FIG. 7. SEM micrograph with higher magnification of the GIC sample with (a) 4.5 wt% AB; (b) spherical particle of AB (1000×); (c) internal structure of the AB particle (10,000×).