Effect of Hydroxyapatite on Surface Roughness of Zirconomer, and Conventional and Resin-Modified Glass Ionomers

  • Farahnaz Sharafeddin Department of Operative Dentistry, Biomaterials Research Center, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
  • Somaye Bahrani Mail Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
Glass Ionomer Cements, Hydroxyapatites, Surface Properties, Biocompatible Materials


Objectives: Glass ionomer cements (GICs) are among the most popular dental restorative materials, but their use is limited due to their clinical disadvantages. Many efforts have been made to improve the properties of these materials by adding various fillers. Incorporation of hydroxyapatite (HA) into the GICs is considered to improve the physical properties of restorations, and may prevent treatment failure. This study aimed to evaluate the surface roughness (Ra) of a conventional glass ionomer cement (CGIC), a resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) and a Zirconomer with and without micro-hydroxyapatite (µHA).
Materials and Methods: This experimental study was conducted on 6 groups (n=10) including CGIC, CGIC + µHA, RMGI, RMGI + µHA, Zirconomer, and Zirconomer + µHA. A total of 60 disc-shaped samples (6 mm × 2 mm) were prepared in plastic molds and were stored in distilled water for 24 h. After polishing of the specimens, their Ra was measured by a profilometer in micrometers (µm). The data were analyzed using two and one-way ANOVA, Tukey's HSD test, and independent t-test.
Results: Incorporation of µHA resulted in statistically significant differences in Ra between the study groups (P<0.05). Following the incorporation of µHA, the Ra significantly decreased in CGIC (P=0.013) and Zirconomer (P=0.003). However, addition of µHA to RMGI resulted in a significant increase in its Ra (P<0.001).
Conclusion: Addition of µHA decreased the Ra of Zirconomer and CGIC, and increased the surface roughness of RMGI samples.


1. Sharafeddin F, Jamalipour G. Effects of 35% carbamide peroxide gel on surface roughness and hardness of composite resins. J Dent (Tehran). 2010;7(1):6-12.
2. Mallya PL, Acharya S, Ballal V, Ginjupalli K, Kundabala M, Thomas M. Profilometric study to compare the effectiveness of various finishing and polishing techniques on different restorative glass ionomer cements. J Interdiscip Dent. 2013 May;3(2):86-91.
3. Hosoya Y, Shiraishi T, Ando S, Miyazaki M, Garcia-Godoy F. Effects of polishing on surface roughness and gloss of S-PRG filled flowable resin composite. Am J Dent. 2012 Aug;25(4):227-30.
4. Nicholson JW. Chemistry of glass-ionomer cements: a review. Biomaterials. 1998 Apr;19(6):485-94.
5. Sharafeddin F, Choobineh MM. Assessment of the shear bond strength between nanofilled composite bonded to glass-ionomer cement using self-etch adhesive with different pHs and total-etch adhesive. J Dent (Shiraz, Iran). 2016 Mar;17(1):1-6.
6. Sharafeddin F, Tondari A, Alavi A. The effect of adding glass and polyethylene fibers on flexural strength of three types of glass-ionomer cements. Res J Biol Scien. 2013;8:66-70.
7. Sharafeddin F, Ghaboos SA, Jowkar Z. The effect of short polyethylene fiber with different weight percentages on diametral tensile strength of conventional and resin modified glass ionomer cements. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017 Mar;9(3):e466-70.
8. Sharafeddin F, Bakhtiarvand NA, Jowkar Z. Evaluation of the effect of home bleaching gel on microleakage of different glass ionomers reinforced with micro-hydroxyapatite. J Conserv Dent. 2019 Jan;22(1):64-8.
9. Gu YW, Yap AU, Cheang P, Khor KA. Effects of incorporation of HA/ZrO(2) into glass ionomer cement (GIC). Biomaterials. 2005 Mar;26(7):713-20.
10. Abdulsamee N, Elkhadem AH. Zirconomer and Zirconomer improved (white amalgams): restorative materials for the future. Review. EC Dent Sci. 2017 Nov;15:134-50.
11. Sharafeddin F, Feizi N. Evaluation of the effect of adding micro-hydroxyapatite and nano-hydroxyapatite on the microleakage of conventional and resin-modified Glass-ionomer Cl V restorations. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017 Feb;9(2):e242-8.
12. Sharafeddin F, Kowkabi M, Shoale S. Evaluation of the effect of home bleaching agents on surface microhardness of different glass-ionomer cements containing hydroxyapatite. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017 Sep;9(9):e1075-80.
13. Moheet IA, Luddin N, Ab Rahman I, Kannan TP, Abd Ghani NR. Evaluation of mechanical properties and bond strength of nano-hydroxyapatite-silica added glass ionomer cement. Ceram Int. 2018 Jun;44(8):9899-906.
14. Hilal MK. Antibacterial property of hydroxyapatite compared to Glass Ionomer Cement and Amalgam. Int J Sci Res. 2014 May;3(5):402-4.
15. Sharafeddin F, Shoale S, Kowkabi M. Effects of different percentages of microhydroxyapatite on microhardness of resin-modified glass-ionomer and Zirconomer. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017 Jun;9(6):e805-11.
16. Da Silva RC, Zuanon AC. Surface roughness of glass ionomer cements indicated for atraumatic restorative treatment (ART). Braz Dent J. 2006;17(2):106-9.
17. Ozdemir-Ozenen D, Sungurtekin E, Issever H, Sandalli N. Surface roughness of fluoride-releasing restorative materials after topical fluoride application. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2013 Mar;14(1):68-72.
18. Bala O, Arisu HD, Yikilgan I, Arslan S, Gullu A. Evaluation of surface roughness and hardness of different glass ionomer cements. Eur J Dent. 2012 Jan;6(1):79-86.
19. Wu SS, Yap AU, Chelvan S, Tan ES. Effect of prophylaxis regimens on surface roughness of glass ionomer cements. Oper Dent. 2005 Mar;30(2):180-4.
20. Singh AK, Shivanna V, Shivamurthy GB, Kedia NB, Yadav AB, Yadav SK. Comparative surface roughness evaluation of A novel aesthetic restorative material using profilometer - an in vitro study. Int J Enhanc Res Med Dent Care. 2014;1(3):9-17.
21. Fruits TJ, Miranda FJ, Coury TL. Effects of equivalent abrasive grit sizes utilizing differing polishing motions on selected restorative materials. Quintessence Int. 1996 Apr;27(4):279-85.
22. Najeeb S, Khurshid Z, Zafar MS, Khan AS, Zohaib S, Marti JM, et al. Modifications in glass ionomer cements: Nano-sized fillers and bioactive nanoceramics. Int J Mol Sci. 2016 Jul; 17(7):1134-43.
23. Woolford MJ. Finishing glass polyalkenoate (glass-ionomer) cements. Br Dent J. 1988 Dec;165(11):395-9.
24. Reis AF, Giannini M, Lovadino JR, Ambrosano GM. Effects of various finishing systems on the surface roughness and staining susceptibility of packable composite resins. Dent Mater. 2003 Jan;19(1):12-8.
25. Gladys S, Van Meerbeek B, Braem M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Comparative physico-mechanical characterization of new hybrid restorative materials with conventional glass-ionomer and resin composite restorative materials. J Dent Res. 1997 Apr;76(4):883-94.
26. Yap AU, Tan WS, Yeo JC, Yap WY, Ong SB. Surface texture of resin-modified glass ionomer cements: effects of finishing/polishing systems. Oper Dent. 2002;27(4):381-6.
27. Prabhakar A, Kalimireddy P, Yavagal C, Sugandhan S. Assessment of the clinical performance of zirconia infused glass ionomer cement: An in vivo study. Int J Oral Heal Sci. 2015 Jul;5(2):74-9.
28. Pitkethy MJ. Nanoparticles as building blocks? Mater Today. 2003 Dec;6(12):36-42.
29. Asafarlal S. Comparative evaluation of microleakage, surface roughness and hardness of three glass ionomer cements – Zirconomer, Fujii IX Extra GC and Ketac Molar : An in vitro study. Dent J. 2017 Apr;7(5):1-5.
30. Moshaverinia A, Ansari S, Moshaverinia M, Roohpour N, Darr JA, Rehman I. Effects of incorporation of hydroxyapatite and fluoroapatite nanobioceramics into conventional glass ionomer cements (GIC). Acta Biomater. 2008 Mar;4(2):432-40.
31. Weitman RT, Eames WB. Plaque accumulation on composite surfaces after various finishing procedures. J Am Dent Assoc. 1975 Jul;91(1):101-6.
32. Setcos JC, Tarim B, Suzuki S. Surface finish produced on resin composites by new polishing systems. Quintessence Int. 1999 Mar;30(3):169-73.
How to Cite
Sharafeddin F, Bahrani S. Effect of Hydroxyapatite on Surface Roughness of Zirconomer, and Conventional and Resin-Modified Glass Ionomers. Front Dent. 17.
Original Article