3180879.pdf - Hindawi.com

Research ArticleDoes Modification of Amalgomer with Propolis Alter ItsPhysicomechanical Properties An In Vitro Study

Reham M Abdallah12 Amr M Abdelghany3 and Neven S Aref 14

1Dental Biomaterials Department Faculty of Dentistry Mansoura University Mansoura Egypt2Dental Biomaterials Department Faculty of Dentistry Horus University New Damietta Dumyat al Jadida Egypt3Spectroscopy Department Physics Division National Research Center Dokki Cairo Giza Egypt4Basic Oral and Medical Sciences Department College of Dentistry Qassim University Buraydah Saudi Arabia

Correspondence should be addressed to Neven S Aref flflarefgmailcom

Received 3 December 2019 Revised 27 March 2020 Accepted 15 April 2020 Published 11 May 2020

Academic Editor Wen-Cheng Chen

Copyright copy 2020 Reham M Abdallah et al is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons AttributionLicense which permits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work isproperly cited

Objective To assess if incorporating ethanolic extract of propolis into ceramic-reinforced glass ionomer (Amalgomer CR) mighthave an influence on its physicomechanical propertiesMaterials and Methods ree groups were assessed group I AmalgomerCR (control) and two experimental groups (II and III) of propolis added to the liquid of Amalgomer CR with 25 and 50 vv respectively Evaluation parameters were color stability compressive strength microhardness and surface roughness Repre-sentative specimens of each group were analyzed by Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy energy-dispersive X-ray X-raydiffraction and scanning electron microscopy Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the results followed by aTukey post hoc test (plt 005) Results Nonsignificant color change for both groups of modified Amalgomer CR Meanwhile thetwo experimental groups exhibited a significant increase in both compressive strength and microhardness Simultaneously therewas a significant difference in roughness values among groups with the lowest roughness values exhibited by the 50 vv propolisconcentration Conclusions Modification of Amalgomer CR with 50 vv propolis may increase its mechanical propertieswithout compromising its esthetic Clinical Significance Modification of Amalgomer CR by 50 vv propolis is supposed to be ahopeful restorative material with favorable characteristics

1 Introduction

Currently the maximum prevention and minimally invasiveapproaches in the dental field are the primary concern forthe development of new techniques and materials Ac-cordingly atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) has beendeveloped depending on the elimination of caries with handinstruments and restoring the tooth with an adhesive sub-stance [1]

Glass ionomer cement (GIC) is the preferred materialdue to its excellent properties such as low cytotoxicitypotentiality for hard tissues regeneration low coefficientof thermal expansion good adhesion to moist toothstructure and anticariogenic properties because of thefluoride ion release [2 3] GIC has also an acceptable

biocompatibility and antimicrobial activity [4] Due tothis antimicrobial potentiality the association of knownantimicrobial agents like propolis chlorhexidine andantibiotics to GICs has been widely studied [5ndash7] Inspecifically difficult clinical conditions as in ART it maybe of a large importance [8]

In spite of these desirable properties low tensile strengthfracture toughness and brittleness of the existing conven-tional types limit their utilization in high-stress situations asin classes I and II restorations [2 3 9 10] Accordingly avariety of modifiers have been applied to conventional glassionomers to improve their mechanical characteristics Suchmodifications included the addition of ldquobioactiverdquo compo-nents as glasses and hydroxyapatite or incorporating metalparticles or fibers to the composition[11]

HindawiInternational Journal of BiomaterialsVolume 2020 Article ID 3180879 10 pageshttpsdoiorg10115520203180879

In 1977 incorporation of amalgam alloy powder intoglass ionomer was expected to increase the strength and toprovide radio-opacity However metal-reinforced types ofcement have not been used as tooth-colored restorationAlso the lack of interfacial bonding which is important forgood transport of stress from the matrix in the metal-reinforced GIC can illustrate why metal-reinforced types ofcement have not shown to be of much more strength anddurability than their metal-free counterparts [12] In the late1980s the addition of polymerizable hydrophilic resins toconventional glass ionomer cements gave rise to the de-velopment of resin-modified formulasey exhibited bettermechanical properties than conventional glass ionomers Tillnow their polymerization shrinkage and low wear resistanceare the main drawbacks [13]

Recently a new ceramic-reinforced glass ionomer(Amalgomer CR) has been brought to the dental marketis tooth-colored product has been advocated by themanufacturer to combine both high strength of a metallicrestorative and the advantages of glass ionomers includingesthetic [12]

Recently the use of naturally obtainable products forpharmacological applications has seen a worldwide expan-sion Propolis identified as bee glue is a natural nontoxicresinous adhesive material It is obtained by honeybeesduring mixing the secretions of their hypopharyngeal glandswith the digested substance of resins obtained from leavesflowers of plants trees and certain barks that is utilized as asealant and sterilizer in honeybee nests Propolis has beenshown to exhibit antioxidant activity antibacterial anti-fungal antiviral antitumor and anti-inflammatory prop-erties [14] It has a wide variety of uses in dentistry proposedby numerous studies [15ndash17] such as decrease in dentinalpermeability and hypersensitivity prohibition of cariouslesions decrease in the inflammation of oral mucosa sub-jected to chemotherapeutic regimens oral cancer gingivitisand periodontitis a component of dentifrice to manage oralmicrobiota by its anti-inflammatory effect and direct pulpcapping and as an analgesic material Moreover as anantiviral it retards the growth and development of skinalterations at the beginning of infection with herpes simplex

Despite these benefits there are only a few reports re-garding the addition of propolis to different dental materials[7] ese researches have concerned about antimicrobialeffects but physical properties have been ignored [18]Moreover there is a shortage of reports on the use ofethanolic extract propolis (EEP) form which possessesnumerous pharmacological characteristics[8] is studyaimed to investigate the efficacy of EEP added to ceramic-reinforced glass ionomer (Amalgomer CR) regardingphysicomechanical properties e null hypothesis was thatthere is no difference in material behavior concerning colorchange surface roughness hardness and compressivestrength with or without propolis

2 Materials and Methods

21 Preparation of Propolis Extract Pristine propolis used inthe present study was acquired from honeybees

(Apismellifera L) inMansoura Egypt After freezing propolissamples at minus20degC they were ground (ZM 200 Retsch HaanGermany) and placed in bottles of 25 g portion After thateach 25 g of propolis was dissolved in 250mL of ethanol 80(volvol) at room temperature using a magnetic stirrer forabout 24 hours en the extract of propolis was clearedfrom harsh using a filter to generate EEP Purified propolissamples were kept in dark at room temperature till beingutilized [19]

22 Preparation of Propolis Containing Amalgomer ematerial used in the study is Amalgomer CR (AdvancedHealth Care Ltd Tonbridge UK Lot no 071724-3)Amalgomer liquid was blended with EEP in proportions of25 and 50 vv

A total of 120 specimens were used to assess colorstability compressive strength surface microhardness andsurface roughness 30 specimens for each test In each testspecimens were equally divided into three groups (I)Amalgomer CR (control) prepared from the conventionalAmalgomer CR liquid (II) 25 vv EEP-modifiedAmalgomer CR and (III) 50 vv EEP-modifiedAmalgomer CR (10 specimens each) Moreover nine rep-resentative specimens (three specimens for each test) wereused for Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR)X-ray diffraction analysis (XRD) scanning electron mi-croscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive X-ray analysis(EDX) (one representative specimen for each group)

23 Specimen Preparation A sectional Teflon mold (8mmdiametertimes 2mm thickness) was utilized to fabricate disc-shaped specimens used for color stability surface roughnessand microhardness tests At the same time a stainless steelsplit mold (4mm in diameter and 6mm in height) accordingto ISO standard was utilized to prepare cylindrical speci-mens for compressive strength testing

Each mold was first positioned above a glass plate and aMylar strip e materials were mixed according to theirmanufacturersrsquo instructions and placed into the molds eMylar strip was placed on each mold and a second glassplate was then positioned over the mold with a smallpressure exerted to extrude the excess material and producea standardized surface finishinge excess material that wasextruded around the edge of the mold was carefully removedby using a surgical blade All specimens were stored indeionized water at 37plusmn 1degC to equilibrate for 48 hours beforetesting

24 Fourier-Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR)Fourier-transform infrared absorption spectra were recor-ded for 32 runs for three representative specimens for thecontrol and two test groups within the spectral range ex-tended from 4000 to 400 cmminus1 using single-beam spectro-photometer (Nicolet iS10 ermo Electron CorporationUK) e spectral resolution was 2 cmminus1 Specimensrsquo spectrawere corrected for dark current spectra and backgroundKBr disc technique was used at which 1 100 sample to KBr

2 International Journal of Biomaterials

was used to obtain clear homogenous disks of diameter 1 cmunder pressure up to 5 tonscm [2]

25 X-RayDiffraction (XRD) ree specimens representingthe studied groups were used to examine the internal ar-rangement of atoms within the prepared matrices usingXRD diffractogram pattern recorded via the computerizedPA analytical XrsquoPert PRO X-ray machine-adopted Cu Kαline e machine was working with 45 kV and 40mAcurrent All measurements were performed within Braggrsquosdiffraction angle (2θ) ranging between 5 and 70deg andwavelength λ 1540 A Peak maxima located at the Braggangle was utilized to identify the crystalline phases inside thematerial structure

26 Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and Energy-Dis-persive X-Ray (EDX) Morphology and surface nature ofthree specimens representing the studied groups were ex-amined using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) (JEOLJSM-6510LV Japan) linked to the EDX unit operating withaccelerating potential 30 kV and magnification up to times106All specimens were coated with a thin layer of gold tominimize the effect of charge

27 Color Stability e color of thirty specimens (10specimens for each group) was assessed using a spectro-photometer (Easyshadereg Vita Zahnfabrik Bad SackingenGermany) employing CIE (Commission International delrsquoEclairage) Llowastalowastblowast related to standard illuminant A using awhite background as a reference Standard illuminantsprovide a foundation for comparing pictures or colorsmeasured under various lighting conditions[20] Mea-surements under natural daylight were conducted For eachsample measurements were repeated three times and theaverage Llowast alowast and blowast was evaluated

e color variation between the color at baseline (controlgroup) and the color of EEP-modified groups (ΔElowast) for eachdisc specimen was estimated using the following equation[21]

ΔElowast ΔLlowast( 11138572

+ Δalowast( 11138572

+ Δblowast( 11138572

1113960 111396112

(1)

where values of ΔElowast ge 33 were estimated as clinically dis-agreeable[22]

28 Compressive Strength Compressive strengths were de-termined by using a method similar to that described byADA [23] Compressive strength testing for thirty specimens(10 specimens for each group) was carried out using auniversal testing machine (Model 3345 Instron Corpora-tion Canton MA USA) at 05mmmin crosshead speed inwhich load was applied in the long axis of the specimensepeak stress applied to the fracture of the specimens wasrecorded and the compressive strength (CS) (MPa) wascalculated as follows

CS 4P

πD2(2)

where P is the maximum applied load at fracture (N) and Dis the diameter of the specimen (mm)

29 Surface Microhardness Using a Vickers microhardnessmeasuring instrument (HMV Microhardness Tester Shi-madzu Japan) the surface microhardness of the uppersurfaces of thirty specimens (10 specimens for each group)was evaluated A 200 g load with a dwelling moment of 15 swas implemented through the indenter For each specimenfive measurements were registered and the average value ofVickersrsquo hardness was measured and expressed in kgmm[2]

210 Surface Roughness A total number of thirty specimens(ten specimens for each group) were used for the surfaceroughness testing Using a surface profilometer (Surftest 211Mitutoyo Tokyo Japan) the surface roughness of eachspecimen was explored in five distinct locations e surfaceroughness cutoff value was 08mm and the stylusrsquo traversingrange was 4mm e tracing diamond tip radius was 5 μmand the measuring strength and velocity were 4mN (04 g)and 05mmiddotsminus1 respectively Each sample shows the averageroughness value (Ra μm) as the mean of the Ra valuesmeasured in five distinct locations

Data were subjected to one-way variance analysis(ANOVA) andmulticomparison testing by Tukey (plt 005)

3 Results

31 FTIR Optical Absorption Spectra Figure 1 reveals FTIRoptical absorption spectra of propolis filler parentAmalgomer CR sample and their variable volume fractioncomposite materials

It was observed that FTIR spectra of propolis filler werecharacterized by sharp bands belonging to the organicportion of the propolis constituent e band at about346 cmminus1 was assigned for the water and OH vibrationalgroups the band at 2920 cmminus1 was attributed to theasymmetric vibrations the band at about 1635 cmminus1 resultedfrom the overlapping of amide I (CO) and CC stretchingof methacrylate group the band at 1320 cmminus1 might resultfrom aromatic skeletal joined with CndashH in plane deformingand stretching the sharp intense band at 1055 assigned tostretching vibrations of both (CndashOndashC) or (CndashF) the lowintensity band at 750 cmminus1 was related to the presence ofstretching vibrations of both (CndashH) and (CndashCl) groups andfinally the bands between 500 and 400 cmminus1 could beassigned to metal ion contaminations even in ppm level [24]

FTIR spectra of Amalgomer sample and samples thatcontain different volume fractions of propolis show the identityof glass ionomer cement represented by the main strong bandlocated at about 1055 cmminus1 attributed to SindashOndashSi vibrationsfrom SiO2-containing fillers while the bands in the region400ndash600 cmminus1 can be related to their respective metallicpartner Samples that contain 25 or 50 vv propolis

International Journal of Biomaterials 3

Amalgomer composite show a clear variation especially in themidregion [25 26]

32 X-Ray Diffraction Figure 2 shows the X-ray diffractionpattern of parent Amalgomer CR sample and variablevolume fraction composite materials containing differentratios of propolis namely 25 and 50 vv

33 Scanning Electron Microscopy Figure 3 shows the SEM(times800) micrographs of the surface morphology of repre-sentative specimens for the control 25 and 50 vv EEP-modified Amalgomer groups at lower magnification as welland higher magnifications e existence of some pores andair voids is most obvious in the surface morphology of thecontrol specimen (A B)e surface morphology of 25 vv EEP-modified Amalgomer group exhibited nonuniformdistribution of propolis particles between the ceramic andglass particles dispersed in the matrix phase of Amalgomer(C and D) Meanwhile with a greater increase in the con-centration of propolis (50 vv ) the surface morphologybecomes more homogenous and uniform with apparentocclusion of the surface microspores with propolis particles(E F)

34 EDX Analysis and Mapping Figure 4 represents EDXanalysis of the main Amalgomer CR specimens before andafter addition of different volume fractions of propolis Itwas clear that the main inorganic constituent of the parentsample (Si Al F Mn and Ca) persist in their position exceptthat of Mn ions e disappearnce of Mn partner afteradding propolis may be attributed to the presence of excessfluorine ions in the composition of propolis that may formdifferent shapes of complexes and masking the Mn ionscausing a drastic structural change and consequently inother physical characteristics of studied specimens Such abehavior was previously recognized by Plenio [27] isbehavior indicates a type of interaction between mainconstituent and filler e degree of homogeneity between

constituents was approved using mapping images (Figure 5)In addition it was observed that the total percent of fluoridecontent tends to increase gradually with increasing propoliscontent in the sample leading to further changes in thephysical characteristics

35 Color Stability Mean color difference values (ΔElowast) andstandard deviations of the studied groups are illustrated inTable 1 Group III had insignificantly higher color differencevalue (184plusmn 017) compared with group II (142plusmn 007)(pgt 005) e color difference values of both groups areclinically acceptable (ΔElowast le 33)

36 Compressive Strength Mean compressive strengthvalues and standard deviations for the studied groups arepresented in Table 1 Group III demonstrated the highestmean compressive value (8601plusmn 434)

While the control group had the lowest value(4467plusmn 365) the ANOVA test indicated a significant dif-ference between the two studied EEP groups and the controlone (plt 00001) meanwhile no significant difference wasidentified between both EEP-modified Amalgomer CRgroups

37 Surface Microhardness Mean surface microhardnessvalues and standard deviations for the considered groups areshown in Table 1 e highest mean microhardness valuewas exhibited by group III (9709plusmn 414) while the controlgroup had the lowest value (6454plusmn 321) e ANOVA testindicated a significant difference among the studied groups(plt 00001) in which 50 vv EEP-modified group meanwas significantly different from both control group and 25vv EEP-modified Amalgomer CR however no signifi-cant difference was identified between control and 25 vv EEP-modified Amalgomer CR groups

38 Surface Roughness Mean surface roughness values (Ra)and standard deviations for the studied groups are shown inTable 1 e results indicated that group II exhibited thehighest mean value (092plusmn 006) while group III had thelowest one (057plusmn 005) e ANOVA test showed a sig-nificant difference among the three studied groups(plt 00001)

4 Discussion

Dentistry is concerned about various technologies to evolvenew materials and techniques to dental restorative materials[28] According to this target a combination of existingmaterials with various substances gave rise to a promisingfield However further research work has to be performed toevoke this real application According to this principlepropolis as a simple naturally obtainable product seems to bea good choice in treatment modalities in dentistry Yet fewstudies declared this up till now [7 29]

Lately a new ceramic-reinforced glass ionomer(Amalgomer CR) has been launched to the dental market

4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500

Abs

orba

nce

Wave number (cmndash1)

50 propolis

25 propolis

Amalgomer

Propolis

3460

2920

2850

1635

1320

1055 75

0

450

Figure 1 FTIR Absorption spectra of the studied specimens


10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Inte

nsity

(au

)

2θ degree

200

150

100

50

0

50 propolis

25 propolis

Amalgomer

Figure 2 X-ray diffraction pattern of parent Amalgomer CR specimen and variable volume fraction composite materials containingdifferent ratios of propolis

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f )

Figure 3 Scanning electron micrographs of studied groupsrsquo samples at low (a c and e) and high magnifications (b d and f)


is tooth-colored product is suggested by the manufacturerto combine the high strength of metallic restorations and theaesthetics and other advantages of glass ionomers [12]

Kouidhi et al [30] declared that EEP is effective against Smutans S mitis S oralis S pyogenes S sanguis S salivarius S

constellatus and Gemella morbillorum Moreover in a studyby Erdem et al [19] it was found that modifying GIC withEEP increases the antibacterial potential of GIC

e large ceramic particles reinforcing glass ionomer ofAmalgomer CR may participate in its high fluoride

Ca

Ca Kα

Ca KβLLL

FeMn

Fe Kα

Fe KβMn Kβ

Mn Kα

C K

O K

AI K

Si K

108

96

84

72

60

48

36

24

12

0000 090 180 270 360 450 540 630 720 810

Lsec 410 0 Cnts 0000 keV Det Octane Pro Det Reso

(a)

Ca Kα

Ca Kβ

C K F K

O K

AI K

P K

Si K

Na K

P LSi LCa L

162K

144K

126K

108K

090K

072K

054K

036K

018K

000K000 090 180 270 360 450 540 630 720 810


(b)

Ca Kα

Ca Kβ

C K

O K

AI K

P K

Si K

F K Na K

P LSi LCa L

10K

153K

136K

119K

102K

085K

068K

051K

034K

017K

000K000 090 180 270 360 450 540 630 720 810


(c)

Figure 4 EDX analysis of the main Amalgomer CR specimens before and after addition of different volume proportions of propolis (a)Amalgomer CR (b) Amalgomer CR with 25 vv propolis (c) Amalgomer CR with 50 vv propolis


0 C K1 O K1 AIK1 SiK

0 CaK1 MnK0 FeK

ElementCOAlSiCaMnF

21502833679480528

2780540

38053747533361279

1071205

Weight () Atomic ()

(a)

1 C K9 O K2 F K2 NaK

9 AIK11 SiK7 P K3 CaK

ElementCOAlSiCaNaF

19223828800914352458978

28284229524575155352910

Weight () Atomic ()

(b)



ElementCOAlSiCaNaF

15683834945

1116403479101

23744259637723183379967

Weight () Atomic ()

(c)

Figure 5 Mapping analysis of the main Amalgomer CR specimens before and after addition of different volume proportions of propolis (a)Amalgomer CR (b) Amalgomer CR with 25 vv propolis (c) Amalgomer CR with 50 vv propolis


discharge [31] Consequently propolis incorporation intoamalgomer might be beneficial in increasing its antibacterialactivity even more than that of its incorporation into GICHowever no previous studies have reported the effect of itsincorporation on physicomechanical properties ofAmalgomer

Regarding physicomechanical properties of AmalgomerCR the results of this study demonstrated that the nullhypothesis could not be accepted since the modification ofAmalgomer CR with EEP altered its physicomechanicalproperties

Concerning the color stability test and according tobased fundamental of literature values of ΔElt 1 are con-sidered as not perceptible by the human eye Values of1ltΔElt 33 are regarded as noticeable by skilled operatorsbut clinically satisfying whereas values of ΔEgt 33 areregarded as detectable by nonskilled persons and aretherefore clinically disagreeable [32]

e results of this study showed insignificantly highercolor difference values of 50 vv EEP-modifiedAmalgomer CR group in comparison to those of 25 vv group (pgt 005) is could be attributed to the yellowishdiscoloration nature of propolis extract which increases withthe increase in propolis concentration dissolved in ethanol

e results of compressive strength test exhibited sig-nificantly higher values of both EEP-modified groups (25and 50 vv ) when compared with the control group withthe highest value corresponding to the higher concentration(50 vv ) is could be explained by the fact that addingpropolis to the liquid of Amalgomer decreases the viscosityof the liquid and extends the working time [31] is fa-cilitates and enhances the ability of the acid to attack theglass particles is will improve the rate at which the ionsare leached and liberated from the glass As a consequence amore fast cement development by gelation of the insolubleproducts of the acid and basic glass takes place [33] isexplanation is consistent with that of Algera et al [34] whofound that the lower viscosity of the liquid leads to increaseof the rate of the reaction by declustering glass particles andimproving the dispersion of the reaction componentsHence mechanical properties could be enhanced [34]

According to the hardness test the 50 vv of EEP-modified group demonstrated significantly higher hardnessvalues in comparison to both 25 vv EEP-modified groupand the control one is might be attributed to the largeceramic particles reinforcing glass ionomer of AmalgomerCR which participate in its high microporosities since theparticles are not tied to the cement matrix thus increasingthe valuable surface area accessible to be incorporated by

propolis particles which may occlude these microporositiesespecially with higher concentrations (50 vv ) of EEP As aconsequence the surface resistance to indentation will in-crease with a corresponding increase in mechanical prop-erties as well is explanation supports compressivestrength results e previous clarification is supported byBahadure et al [35] who noticed that the large silver alloyparticles in a metal-reinforced glass ionomer that are notlinked to the cement matrix produce an increase in themicroporosity of the cement [35]

Roughness results of this study is coincident with theexplanation of hardness test results since there was a sig-nificant difference between all the tested groups with thelowest mean roughness values demonstrated by the highestconcentration of the 50 vv EEP-modified group ehigher the concentration of propolis the higher the ability ofits particles in the extract to occlude the microporositiespresent in the structure of Amalgomer CR matrix as a resultof its coarse ceramic particles not being bound to the cementmatrix e scanning electron micrographs of the testedgroups support roughness results where the greatest ho-mogeneity and uniformity in the surface morphology wereobserved with the greatest concentration of the EEP-mod-ified Amalgomer group

In contrast Topcuoglu et al [36] found that EEP shouldbe present in a small ratio as possible as the EEP does notparticipate in the construction of the glass ionomer networkof Amalgomer CR and thus high ratios of EEP would weakenthe scaffold and deteriorate the physical properties [36]

5 Conclusions

Based on the results presented and within the limitations ofthis study the following could be deduced

(1) Amalgomer CR modified with either 25 or 50 vv EEP exhibited a nonsignificant color change

(2) Modification of Amalgomer CR with 25 or 50 vv EEP improved significantly its surface microhard-ness and compressive strength

(3) Modification of Amalgomer CR with 50 vv EEPsignificantly decreased its surface roughness

(4) Addition of propolis generates an increase in fluo-rine content combined with formation of differentcomplexes with the resultant variation of physicalcharacteristics

(5) Amalgomer CR modified with 50 vv EEP ispromising restorative dental material with enhanced

Table 1 Means and standard deviations of the physicomechanical properties of Amalgomer CR incorporated with EEP and Tukeyrsquosanalysis

Group Color stability (ΔE) Compressive strength (MPa) Microhardness (kgmm2) Surface roughness (μm)I (control) mdash 4467plusmn 365b 6454plusmn 321b 067plusmn 007bII (25wt EEP) 142plusmn 007 8422plusmn 60a 6828plusmn 180b 092plusmn 006aIII (50wt EEP) 184plusmn 017 8601plusmn 434a 9709plusmn 414a 057plusmn 005cp value 01 lt00001 lt00001 lt00001Mean values with same superscripted letters are significantly different at plt 005


physicomechanical properties It provides betterphysicomechanical properties compared with thelower concentration (25 vv ) of EEP Howeverfurther studies are needed to assess its clinical per-formance as well as fluoride release and its bond tothe tooth structure

Data Availability

All data presented or analyzed during this study are includedwithin this article

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies were in accordance withthe ethical standards of the institutional andor nationalresearch committee is study was approved by institu-tional review board A13061119

Consent

All authors have approved the manuscript and agree withsubmission

Conflicts of Interest

e authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest

References

[1] L Wang L G Lopes E Bresciani J R P LaurisR F L Mondelli and M F L Navarro ldquoEvaluation of Class IART restorations in Brazilian schoolchildren three-year re-sultsrdquo Special Care in Dentistry vol 24 no 1 pp 28ndash33 2004

[2] R A Shiekh I A Rahman S M Masudi and N LuddinldquoModification of glass-ionomer cement by incorporatinghydroxyapatite silica nanopowder composite sol-gel syn-thesis and characterizationrdquo Ceramics international vol 40no 2 pp 3165ndash3170 2014

[3] S Q Li B H Su J G Ran J Wang L L Yan and X M TuldquoEffects of niobium oxide addition on the mechanicalproperties of glass ionomer cementrdquoMaterials Science Forumvol 815 pp 373ndash378 2015

[4] D F G Cefaly L Wang L L C P d Mello J L d SantosJ R d Santos and J R P Lauris ldquoWater sorption of resin-modified glass-ionomer cements photoactivated with LEDrdquoBrazilian Oral Research vol 20 no 4 pp 342ndash346 2006

[5] H C Ferreira and M A Rego ldquoEvaluation in vitro ofproperties physicist-chemistries of glass-ionomer cementsafter addition of propolis and antibioticsrdquo CiencOdontolBrasvol 9 pp 38ndash46 2006

[6] B J Sanders R L Gregory K Moore and D R AveryldquoAntibacterial and physical properties of resin modified glass-ionomers combined with chlorhexidinerdquo Journal of OralRehabilitation vol 29 no 6 pp 553ndash558 2002

[7] C Yesilyurt K Er T Tasdemir K Buruk and D CelikldquoAntibacterial activity and physical properties of glass-ion-omer cements containing antibioticsrdquo Operative Dentistryvol 34 no 1 pp 18ndash23 2009

[8] V B P B Troca K B P Fernandes A E TerrileM C Marcucci F B d Andrade and L Wang ldquoEffect ofgreen propolis addition to physical mechanical properties of

glass ionomer cementsrdquo Journal of Applied Oral Sciencevol 19 no 2 pp 100ndash105 2011

[9] J Zoergiebel and N Ilie ldquoEvaluation of a conventional glassionomer cement with new zinc formulation effect of coatingaging and storage agentsrdquo Clinical Oral Investigations vol 17no 2 pp 619ndash626 2013

[10] H A Zraikat J E Palamara H H Messer M F Burrow andE C Reynolds ldquoe incorporation of casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate into a glass ionomer cementrdquoDental Materials vol 27 p 235 2011

[11] Y Wang and B W Darvell ldquoHertzian load-bearing capacityof a ceramic-reinforced glass ionomer cement stored wet anddryrdquo Dental Materials vol 25 no 8 pp 952ndash955 2009

[12] M A Neveen A E Salwa and M B Osama ldquoAn in-vitrostudy of the physico-mechanical properties of a new estheticrestorative versus dental amalgamrdquo Revista de Clınica ePesquisa Odontologica vol 4 p 137 2008

[13] G Deepa and T Shobha ldquoA clinical evaluation of two glassionomer cements in primary molars using atraumatic re-storative treatment technique in India 1 year follow uprdquoInternational Journal of Paediatric Dentistry vol 20 no 6pp 410ndash418 2010

[14] A Russo V Cardile F Sanchez N Troncoso A Vanella andJ A Garbarino ldquoChilean propolis antioxidant activity andantiproliferative action in human tumor cell linesrdquo Life Sci-ences vol 76 no 5 pp 545ndash558 2004

[15] A S Mahmoud K Almas and A A Dahlan ldquoe effect ofpropolis on dentinal hypersensitivity and level of satisfactionamong patients from a university hospital Riyadh SaudiArabiardquo Indian Journal of Dental Research vol 10 p 130 1999

[16] E L Ghisalbert ldquoPropolis a reviewrdquo BeeWorld vol 60 no 2pp 59ndash84 1979

[17] S Scheller L Ilewicz M Luciak D Skrobidurska A StojkoandWMatuga ldquoBiological properties and clinical applicationof propolis IX Experimental observation on the influence ofethanol extract of propolis (EEP) on dental pulp regenera-tionrdquo Arzneimittel-Forschung vol 28 no 28 p 289 1978

[18] G P S R Rezende F C Pimenta and L R R S CostaldquoAntimicrobial activity of two brazilian commercial propolisextractsrdquo Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences vol 5 p 9672006

[19] H Erdem O Fırat B Tugca A Sertac and S NeslihanldquoAntibacterial and mechanical properties of propolis added toglass ionomer cementrdquoJe Angle Orthodontist vol 84 no 2pp 368ndash373 2014

[20] CIE Standard Standard Method of Assessing the SpectralQuality of Daylight Simulators for Visual Appraisal andMeasurement of Colour A standard method for assessing thequality of daylight simulators ISO Standard 236032005(E)

[21] E Sirin Karaarslan M Bulbul E Yildiz A Secilmis F Sariand A Usumez ldquoEffects of different polishing methods oncolor stability of resin composites after accelerated agingrdquoDental Materials Journal vol 32 no 1 pp 58ndash67 2013

[22] I E Ruyter K Nilner and B Moller ldquoColor stability of dentalcomposite resin materials for crown and bridge veneersrdquoDental Materials vol 3 no 5 pp 246ndash251 1987

[23] G C Cho L M Kaneko T E Donovan and S N WhiteldquoDiametral and compressive strength of dental core mate-rialsrdquo Je Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry vol 82 no 3pp 272ndash276 1999

[24] U Hussein N Hassan M Elhalwagy et al ldquoGinger andpropolis exert neuroprotective effects against monosodiumglutamate-induced neurotoxicity in ratsrdquo Molecules vol 22no 11 p 1928 2017


[25] A S Khan H Khalid Z Sarfraz et al ldquoVibrational spec-troscopy of selective dental restorative materialsrdquo AppliedSpectroscopy Reviews vol 52 no 6 pp 507ndash540 2017

[26] S A Yamakami A L M UBALDINI F Sato A MedinaNeto R C Pascotto and M L Baesso ldquoStudy of the chemicalinteraction between a high-viscosity glass ionomer cementand dentinrdquo Journal of Applied Oral Science vol 26 2018

[27] H Plenio ldquoe coordination chemistry of fluorine in fluo-rocarbonsrdquo Chembiochem vol 5 no 5 pp 605ndash655 2004

[28] M J Bertolini M A Zaghete R Gimenes andG C Padovani ldquoDetermination of the properties of an ex-perimental glass polyalkenoate cement prepared from nio-bium silicate powder containing fluoriderdquo Dental Materialsvol 24 no 1 pp 124ndash128 2008

[29] F Ozan Z Sumer Z A Polat K Er U Ozan and O DegerldquoEffect of mouthrinse containing propolis on oral microor-ganisms and human gingival fibroblastsrdquo European Journal ofDentistry vol 1 no 4 pp 195ndash201 2007

[30] B Kouidhi T Zmantar A Bakhrouf et al ldquoAnti-cariogenicand antibiofilms activity of Tunisian propolis extract and itspotential protective effect against cancer cells proliferationrdquoAnaerobe vol 16 pp 566ndash571 2010

[31] A Bhattacharya S Vaidya K Anil A Tomer and A RainaldquoGIC at its best-a review on ceramic reinforcedrdquo GIC vol 3pp 405ndash408 2017

[32] A U Yap C P Sim W L Loh and J H Teo ldquoHuman-eyeversus computerized color matchingrdquo Operative Dentistryvol 24 pp 358ndash363 1999

[33] M J Woolford ldquoEffect of radiant heat on the surface hardnessof glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cementrdquo Journal of Den-tistry vol 22 no 6 pp 360ndash363 1994

[34] T J Algera C J Kleverlaan A J de Gee B Prahl-Andersenand A J Feilzer ldquoe influence of accelerating the setting rateby ultrasound or heat on the bond strength of glass ionomersused as orthodontic bracket cementsrdquo European Journal ofOrthodontics vol 27 no 5 pp 472ndash476 2005

[35] R Bahadure R Pandey R Kumar K Gopal and R SinghldquoAn estimation of fluoride release from various dental re-storative materials at different pH in vitro studyrdquo Journal ofIndian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry vol 30no 2 p 122 2012

[36] N Topcuoglu F Ozan M Ozyurt and G Kulekci ldquoIn vitroantibacterial effects of glass-ionomer cement containingethanolic extract of propolis on Streptococcus mutansrdquo Eu-ropean Journal of Dentistry vol 6 no 6 p 428 2012


In 1977 incorporation of amalgam alloy powder intoglass ionomer was expected to increase the strength and toprovide radio-opacity However metal-reinforced types ofcement have not been used as tooth-colored restorationAlso the lack of interfacial bonding which is important forgood transport of stress from the matrix in the metal-reinforced GIC can illustrate why metal-reinforced types ofcement have not shown to be of much more strength anddurability than their metal-free counterparts [12] In the late1980s the addition of polymerizable hydrophilic resins toconventional glass ionomer cements gave rise to the de-velopment of resin-modified formulasey exhibited bettermechanical properties than conventional glass ionomers Tillnow their polymerization shrinkage and low wear resistanceare the main drawbacks [13]

Recently a new ceramic-reinforced glass ionomer(Amalgomer CR) has been brought to the dental marketis tooth-colored product has been advocated by themanufacturer to combine both high strength of a metallicrestorative and the advantages of glass ionomers includingesthetic [12]

Recently the use of naturally obtainable products forpharmacological applications has seen a worldwide expan-sion Propolis identified as bee glue is a natural nontoxicresinous adhesive material It is obtained by honeybeesduring mixing the secretions of their hypopharyngeal glandswith the digested substance of resins obtained from leavesflowers of plants trees and certain barks that is utilized as asealant and sterilizer in honeybee nests Propolis has beenshown to exhibit antioxidant activity antibacterial anti-fungal antiviral antitumor and anti-inflammatory prop-erties [14] It has a wide variety of uses in dentistry proposedby numerous studies [15ndash17] such as decrease in dentinalpermeability and hypersensitivity prohibition of cariouslesions decrease in the inflammation of oral mucosa sub-jected to chemotherapeutic regimens oral cancer gingivitisand periodontitis a component of dentifrice to manage oralmicrobiota by its anti-inflammatory effect and direct pulpcapping and as an analgesic material Moreover as anantiviral it retards the growth and development of skinalterations at the beginning of infection with herpes simplex

Despite these benefits there are only a few reports re-garding the addition of propolis to different dental materials[7] ese researches have concerned about antimicrobialeffects but physical properties have been ignored [18]Moreover there is a shortage of reports on the use ofethanolic extract propolis (EEP) form which possessesnumerous pharmacological characteristics[8] is studyaimed to investigate the efficacy of EEP added to ceramic-reinforced glass ionomer (Amalgomer CR) regardingphysicomechanical properties e null hypothesis was thatthere is no difference in material behavior concerning colorchange surface roughness hardness and compressivestrength with or without propolis

2 Materials and Methods

21 Preparation of Propolis Extract Pristine propolis used inthe present study was acquired from honeybees

(Apismellifera L) inMansoura Egypt After freezing propolissamples at minus20degC they were ground (ZM 200 Retsch HaanGermany) and placed in bottles of 25 g portion After thateach 25 g of propolis was dissolved in 250mL of ethanol 80(volvol) at room temperature using a magnetic stirrer forabout 24 hours en the extract of propolis was clearedfrom harsh using a filter to generate EEP Purified propolissamples were kept in dark at room temperature till beingutilized [19]

22 Preparation of Propolis Containing Amalgomer ematerial used in the study is Amalgomer CR (AdvancedHealth Care Ltd Tonbridge UK Lot no 071724-3)Amalgomer liquid was blended with EEP in proportions of25 and 50 vv

A total of 120 specimens were used to assess colorstability compressive strength surface microhardness andsurface roughness 30 specimens for each test In each testspecimens were equally divided into three groups (I)Amalgomer CR (control) prepared from the conventionalAmalgomer CR liquid (II) 25 vv EEP-modifiedAmalgomer CR and (III) 50 vv EEP-modifiedAmalgomer CR (10 specimens each) Moreover nine rep-resentative specimens (three specimens for each test) wereused for Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR)X-ray diffraction analysis (XRD) scanning electron mi-croscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive X-ray analysis(EDX) (one representative specimen for each group)

23 Specimen Preparation A sectional Teflon mold (8mmdiametertimes 2mm thickness) was utilized to fabricate disc-shaped specimens used for color stability surface roughnessand microhardness tests At the same time a stainless steelsplit mold (4mm in diameter and 6mm in height) accordingto ISO standard was utilized to prepare cylindrical speci-mens for compressive strength testing

Each mold was first positioned above a glass plate and aMylar strip e materials were mixed according to theirmanufacturersrsquo instructions and placed into the molds eMylar strip was placed on each mold and a second glassplate was then positioned over the mold with a smallpressure exerted to extrude the excess material and producea standardized surface finishinge excess material that wasextruded around the edge of the mold was carefully removedby using a surgical blade All specimens were stored indeionized water at 37plusmn 1degC to equilibrate for 48 hours beforetesting

24 Fourier-Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR)Fourier-transform infrared absorption spectra were recor-ded for 32 runs for three representative specimens for thecontrol and two test groups within the spectral range ex-tended from 4000 to 400 cmminus1 using single-beam spectro-photometer (Nicolet iS10 ermo Electron CorporationUK) e spectral resolution was 2 cmminus1 Specimensrsquo spectrawere corrected for dark current spectra and backgroundKBr disc technique was used at which 1 100 sample to KBr










1113960 111396112

(1)



CS 4P

πD2(2)





3 Results















4 Discussion



4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500

Abs

orba

nce


50 propolis

25 propolis

Amalgomer

Propolis

3460

2920

2850

1635

1320

1055 75

0

450



10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Inte

nsity

(au

)

2θ degree

200

150

100

50

0

50 propolis

25 propolis

Amalgomer


(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f )







Ca

Ca Kα

Ca KβLLL

FeMn

Fe Kα

Fe KβMn Kβ

Mn Kα

C K

O K

AI K

Si K

108

96

84

72

60

48

36

24

12

0000 090 180 270 360 450 540 630 720 810


(a)

Ca Kα

Ca Kβ

C K F K

O K

AI K

P K

Si K

Na K

P LSi LCa L

162K

144K

126K

108K

090K

072K

054K

036K

018K

000K000 090 180 270 360 450 540 630 720 810


(b)

Ca Kα

Ca Kβ

C K

O K

AI K

P K

Si K

F K Na K

P LSi LCa L

10K

153K

136K

119K

102K

085K

068K

051K

034K

017K

000K000 090 180 270 360 450 540 630 720 810


(c)




0 CaK1 MnK0 FeK

ElementCOAlSiCaMnF

21502833679480528

2780540

38053747533361279

1071205

Weight () Atomic ()

(a)



ElementCOAlSiCaNaF

19223828800914352458978

28284229524575155352910

Weight () Atomic ()

(b)



ElementCOAlSiCaNaF

15683834945

1116403479101

23744259637723183379967

Weight () Atomic ()

(c)












5 Conclusions











Data Availability


Ethical Approval


Consent




References
















































1113960 111396112

(1)



CS 4P

πD2(2)





3 Results















4 Discussion



4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500

Abs

orba

nce


50 propolis

25 propolis

Amalgomer

Propolis

3460

2920

2850

1635

1320

1055 75

0

450



10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Inte

nsity

(au

)

2θ degree

200

150

100

50

0

50 propolis

25 propolis

Amalgomer


(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f )







Ca

Ca Kα

Ca KβLLL

FeMn

Fe Kα

Fe KβMn Kβ

Mn Kα

C K

O K

AI K

Si K

108

96

84

72

60

48

36

24

12

0000 090 180 270 360 450 540 630 720 810


(a)

Ca Kα

Ca Kβ

C K F K

O K

AI K

P K

Si K

Na K

P LSi LCa L

162K

144K

126K

108K

090K

072K

054K

036K

018K

000K000 090 180 270 360 450 540 630 720 810


(b)

Ca Kα

Ca Kβ

C K

O K

AI K

P K

Si K

F K Na K

P LSi LCa L

10K

153K

136K

119K

102K

085K

068K

051K

034K

017K

000K000 090 180 270 360 450 540 630 720 810


(c)




0 CaK1 MnK0 FeK

ElementCOAlSiCaMnF

21502833679480528

2780540

38053747533361279

1071205

Weight () Atomic ()

(a)



ElementCOAlSiCaNaF

19223828800914352458978

28284229524575155352910

Weight () Atomic ()

(b)



ElementCOAlSiCaNaF

15683834945

1116403479101

23744259637723183379967

Weight () Atomic ()

(c)












5 Conclusions











Data Availability


Ethical Approval


Consent




References


















































4 Discussion



4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500

Abs

orba

nce


50 propolis

25 propolis

Amalgomer

Propolis

3460

2920

2850

1635

1320

1055 75

0

450



10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Inte

nsity

(au

)

2θ degree

200

150

100

50

0

50 propolis

25 propolis

Amalgomer


(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f )







Ca

Ca Kα

Ca KβLLL

FeMn

Fe Kα

Fe KβMn Kβ

Mn Kα

C K

O K

AI K

Si K

108

96

84

72

60

48

36

24

12

0000 090 180 270 360 450 540 630 720 810


(a)

Ca Kα

Ca Kβ

C K F K

O K

AI K

P K

Si K

Na K

P LSi LCa L

162K

144K

126K

108K

090K

072K

054K

036K

018K

000K000 090 180 270 360 450 540 630 720 810


(b)

Ca Kα

Ca Kβ

C K

O K

AI K

P K

Si K

F K Na K

P LSi LCa L

10K

153K

136K

119K

102K

085K

068K

051K

034K

017K

000K000 090 180 270 360 450 540 630 720 810


(c)




0 CaK1 MnK0 FeK

ElementCOAlSiCaMnF

21502833679480528

2780540

38053747533361279

1071205

Weight () Atomic ()

(a)



ElementCOAlSiCaNaF

19223828800914352458978

28284229524575155352910

Weight () Atomic ()

(b)



ElementCOAlSiCaNaF

15683834945

1116403479101

23744259637723183379967

Weight () Atomic ()

(c)












5 Conclusions











Data Availability


Ethical Approval


Consent




References








































10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Inte

nsity

(au

)

2θ degree

200

150

100

50

0

50 propolis

25 propolis

Amalgomer


(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f )







Ca

Ca Kα

Ca KβLLL

FeMn

Fe Kα

Fe KβMn Kβ

Mn Kα

C K

O K

AI K

Si K

108

96

84

72

60

48

36

24

12

0000 090 180 270 360 450 540 630 720 810


(a)

Ca Kα

Ca Kβ

C K F K

O K

AI K

P K

Si K

Na K

P LSi LCa L

162K

144K

126K

108K

090K

072K

054K

036K

018K

000K000 090 180 270 360 450 540 630 720 810


(b)

Ca Kα

Ca Kβ

C K

O K

AI K

P K

Si K

F K Na K

P LSi LCa L

10K

153K

136K

119K

102K

085K

068K

051K

034K

017K

000K000 090 180 270 360 450 540 630 720 810


(c)




0 CaK1 MnK0 FeK

ElementCOAlSiCaMnF

21502833679480528

2780540

38053747533361279

1071205

Weight () Atomic ()

(a)



ElementCOAlSiCaNaF

19223828800914352458978

28284229524575155352910

Weight () Atomic ()

(b)



ElementCOAlSiCaNaF

15683834945

1116403479101

23744259637723183379967

Weight () Atomic ()

(c)












5 Conclusions











Data Availability


Ethical Approval


Consent




References












































Ca

Ca Kα

Ca KβLLL

FeMn

Fe Kα

Fe KβMn Kβ

Mn Kα

C K

O K

AI K

Si K

108

96

84

72

60

48

36

24

12

0000 090 180 270 360 450 540 630 720 810


(a)

Ca Kα

Ca Kβ

C K F K

O K

AI K

P K

Si K

Na K

P LSi LCa L

162K

144K

126K

108K

090K

072K

054K

036K

018K

000K000 090 180 270 360 450 540 630 720 810


(b)

Ca Kα

Ca Kβ

C K

O K

AI K

P K

Si K

F K Na K

P LSi LCa L

10K

153K

136K

119K

102K

085K

068K

051K

034K

017K

000K000 090 180 270 360 450 540 630 720 810


(c)




0 CaK1 MnK0 FeK

ElementCOAlSiCaMnF

21502833679480528

2780540

38053747533361279

1071205

Weight () Atomic ()

(a)



ElementCOAlSiCaNaF

19223828800914352458978

28284229524575155352910

Weight () Atomic ()

(b)



ElementCOAlSiCaNaF

15683834945

1116403479101

23744259637723183379967

Weight () Atomic ()

(c)












5 Conclusions











Data Availability


Ethical Approval


Consent




References









































0 CaK1 MnK0 FeK

ElementCOAlSiCaMnF

21502833679480528

2780540

38053747533361279

1071205

Weight () Atomic ()

(a)



ElementCOAlSiCaNaF

19223828800914352458978

28284229524575155352910

Weight () Atomic ()

(b)



ElementCOAlSiCaNaF

15683834945

1116403479101

23744259637723183379967

Weight () Atomic ()

(c)












5 Conclusions











Data Availability


Ethical Approval


Consent




References

















































5 Conclusions











Data Availability


Ethical Approval


Consent




References









































Data Availability


Ethical Approval


Consent




References








































3180879.pdf - Hindawi.com

Documents

Transcript of 3180879.pdf - Hindawi.com