In vitro evaluation of the compressive strength of glass ionomer cement modified with propolis in different proportions

Scientific Dental Journal Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.4103/sdj.sdj_1_23

Advita Azalia, Deviyanti Pratiwi, A. Hasan, Rosalina Tjandrawinata, Eddy Eddy

{"title":"In vitro evaluation of the compressive strength of glass ionomer cement modified with propolis in different proportions","authors":"Advita Azalia, Deviyanti Pratiwi, A. Hasan, Rosalina Tjandrawinata, Eddy Eddy","doi":"10.4103/sdj.sdj_1_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Antibacterial additives are frequently added in an effort to enhance the antibacterial properties of glass ionomer cement (GIC). GIC modified with ethanolic extract of propolis (EEP) has been proven to improve GIC’s antibacterial properties, but this modification is suspected to have detrimental impacts on its compressive strength. Objectives: To evaluate the compressive strength of GIC incorporated with different proportions of propolis extracts from Trigona spp. from Garut, Indonesia. Methods: This experimental in vitro laboratory study comsisted of 20 cylindrical glass ionomer specimens divided into four groups according to the proportions of propolis added to the GIC liquid: Group A: conventional GIC (control), Group B: 25% EEP added (% w/w), Group C: 30% EEP added (% w/w), and Group D: 35% EEP added (% w/w). A universal testing machine was used to assess compressive strength after the samples were immersed in artificial saliva and incubated for 24 h. Data were analyzed with one-way analysis of variance and Tukey’s test (P < 0.05). Results: The addition of EEP decreased the compressive strength of the GIC liner. Mean compressive strength values were 118.06 ± 24.1 MPa (Group A), 103.17 ± 10.26 MPa (Group B), 79.18 ± 9.99 MPa (Group C), and 77.03 ± 6.13 MPa (Group D). In comparison to the control group, a nonsignificant difference was observed when 25% EEP was added (P > 0.05), whereas both 30% EEP and 35% EEP resulted in significant decreases in compressive strength (P < 0.05). Conclusion: GIC modified with 25% EEP might be a promising restorative material for cavity linings.","PeriodicalId":32049,"journal":{"name":"Scientific Dental Journal","volume":"7 1","pages":"6 - 10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific Dental Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/sdj.sdj_1_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Antibacterial additives are frequently added in an effort to enhance the antibacterial properties of glass ionomer cement (GIC). GIC modified with ethanolic extract of propolis (EEP) has been proven to improve GIC’s antibacterial properties, but this modification is suspected to have detrimental impacts on its compressive strength. Objectives: To evaluate the compressive strength of GIC incorporated with different proportions of propolis extracts from Trigona spp. from Garut, Indonesia. Methods: This experimental in vitro laboratory study comsisted of 20 cylindrical glass ionomer specimens divided into four groups according to the proportions of propolis added to the GIC liquid: Group A: conventional GIC (control), Group B: 25% EEP added (% w/w), Group C: 30% EEP added (% w/w), and Group D: 35% EEP added (% w/w). A universal testing machine was used to assess compressive strength after the samples were immersed in artificial saliva and incubated for 24 h. Data were analyzed with one-way analysis of variance and Tukey’s test (P < 0.05). Results: The addition of EEP decreased the compressive strength of the GIC liner. Mean compressive strength values were 118.06 ± 24.1 MPa (Group A), 103.17 ± 10.26 MPa (Group B), 79.18 ± 9.99 MPa (Group C), and 77.03 ± 6.13 MPa (Group D). In comparison to the control group, a nonsignificant difference was observed when 25% EEP was added (P > 0.05), whereas both 30% EEP and 35% EEP resulted in significant decreases in compressive strength (P < 0.05). Conclusion: GIC modified with 25% EEP might be a promising restorative material for cavity linings.

查看原文本刊更多论文

不同比例蜂胶改性玻璃离子水泥抗压强度的体外评价

背景：为了提高玻璃离聚物水泥（GIC）的抗菌性能，人们经常添加抗菌添加剂。用蜂胶乙醇提取物（EEP）修饰的GIC已被证明可以改善GIC的抗菌性能，但这种修饰被怀疑对其抗压强度有不利影响。目的：评价掺入不同比例Trigona蜂胶提取物的GIC的抗压强度。方法：本实验由20个圆柱形玻璃离聚物样品组成，根据蜂胶添加到GIC液体中的比例分为四组：A组：常规GIC（对照），B组：添加25%EEP（%w/w），C组：添加30%EEP（%w/w），D组：添加35%EEP（%-w/w）。将样品浸入人工唾液中并孵育24小时后，使用通用测试机评估抗压强度 h.采用单向方差分析和Tukey检验对数据进行分析（P<0.05）。结果：EEP的加入降低了GIC衬垫的抗压强度。平均抗压强度值为118.06 ± 24.1 MPa（A组），103.17 ± 10.26 MPa（B组），79.18 ± 9.99 MPa（C组）和77.03 ± 6.13 MPa（D组）。与对照组相比，当加入25%EEP时，差异无统计学意义（P>0.05），而30%EEP和35%EEP均导致抗压强度显著降低（P<0.05）。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Scientific Dental Journal

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

7 weeks