Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2024 Nov 1;49(4):e41.
doi: 10.5395/rde.2024.49.e41. eCollection 2024 Nov.

Comparative evaluation of the biological response of conventional and resin modified glass ionomer cement on human cells: a systematic review

Shishir Singh  1 , Gaurav Kulkarni  1 , R S Mohan Kumar  2 , Romi Jain  3 , Ameya M Lokhande  1 , Teena K Sitlaney  1 , Musharraf H F Ansari  1 , Navin S Agarwal  1
Affiliations
Review

Comparative evaluation of the biological response of conventional and resin modified glass ionomer cement on human cells: a systematic review

Shishir Singh et al. Restor Dent Endod. .

Abstract

This review aimed to evaluate and compare the biological response (biocompatibility and cytotoxicity) of resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) in contrast to conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) on human cells. Articles reporting parallel and split-mouth clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, prospective studies, and in vitro studies on human permanent teeth that assessed the biological response of GIC and RMGIC were included. The following electronic bibliographic databases were searched using the keywords: MEDLINE/PubMed, EBSCO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar. For the risk of bias MINORS tool and the modified scale of Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials were used. Initial screening identified 552 studies, of which 9 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the study. Different parameters such as odontoblastic changes, inflammatory response, tertiary dentin formation, presence of microorganisms, morphological changes, cell viability, number, and metabolism were used to evaluate the biological response of conventional GIC and RMGICs. Conventional GIC shows lower cytotoxicity compared to RMGIC in vital pulp therapy procedures. Further, in vivo studies and long-term clinical trials are needed to compare these observations for pulp therapy using the 2 test materials.

Trial registration: PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42023426021.

Keywords: Biocompatibility; Cytotoxicity; Glass ionomer cement; Resin modified glass ionomer cement.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Summary of the inclusion and screening of articles following the PRISMA approach.
PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Anusavice KJ. Phillips’ science of dental materials. 11th ed. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders; 2003.
    1. Sidhu SK. Glass-ionomer cement restorative materials: a sticky subject? Aust Dent J. 2011;56(Supplement 1):23–30. - PubMed
    1. Nicholson JW, Czarnecka B. The biocompatibility of resin-modified glass-ionomer cements for dentistry. Dent Mater. 2008;24:1702–1708. - PubMed
    1. Mount GJ. Some physical and biological properties of glass ionomer cement. Int Dent J. 1995;45:135–140. - PubMed
    1. Ching HS, Luddin N, Kannan TP, Ab Rahman I, Abdul Ghani NR. Modification of glass ionomer cements on their physical-mechanical and antimicrobial properties. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2018;30:557–571. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources