Consensus on glass-ionomer cement thresholds for restorative indications

Objective: The aim of this paper is to present the results of a consensus meeting on the threshold property requirements for the clinical use of conventional glass-ionomer cements (GICs) for restorative indications. Methods: Twenty-one experts on GICs evaluated the results of tests on mechanical and optical properties of 18 different brands of restorative GICs: Bioglass R [B], Chemfil Rock [CR], Equia Forte [EF], Gold Label 2 [GL2], Gold Label 9 [GL9], Glass Ionomer Cement II [GI], Ionglass [IG], Ion Z [IZ], Ionomaster [IM], Ionofil Plus [IP], Ionostar Plus [IS], Ketac Molar Easymix [KM], Magic Glass [MG], Maxxion R [MA], Riva Self Cure [R], Vidrion R [V], Vitro Fil [VF] and Vitro Molar [VM]. All experiments were carried out by a team of researchers from Brazil and England following strict protocols, under the same laboratory conditions throughout, and maintaining data integrity. Results: There was consensus on: determining as primary properties of the material: compressive strength, microhardness, acid erosion and fluoride release, and as secondary properties: contrast ratio and translucency parameter, in order to rank the materials. Seven brands were below the thresholds for restorative indications: IZ, IM, IG, MA, VF, B and MG. Conclusions: Based on the primary properties adopted as being essential for restorative indications, the conventional restorative GICs that met the thresholds and could be considered suitable as long-term restorative materials were: EF, GI, GL9, KM, IP, GL2, IS, CR, V, VM and R. A decision-making process to select the best GIC must also include results from clinical trials. Clinical significance: This study provides a ranking of GICs that could be considered suitable as long-term restorative materials based on their main properties.

Automated summary

This study presents the results of a consensus meeting on the threshold property requirements for the clinical use of conventional glass-ionomer cements for restorative indications. 21 experts evaluated 18 different brands of restorative GICs and identified primary properties like compressive strength, microhardness, acid erosion, and fluoride release, as well as secondary properties like contrast ratio and translucency parameter to rank the materials. The study concluded that certain GICs met the thresholds for restorative indications and could be considered suitable as long-term restorative materials, with a decision-making process also considering results from clinical trials.