Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
International Journal of Biomaterials
Volume 2017 (2017), Article ID 7123919, 11 pages
Research Article

Novel Nanotechnology of TiO2 Improves Physical-Chemical and Biological Properties of Glass Ionomer Cement

1Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil
2Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontics, Division of Periodontics, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil
3Department of Dentistry, Endodontic and Dental Materials, Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Bauru, SP, Brazil
4São Paulo University, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
5Department of Physics, School of Science, State University of São Paulo, Bauru, SP, Brazil
6São Leopoldo Mandic Institute, Dental Research Center, Campinas, São Paulo, SP, Brazil

Correspondence should be addressed to Kamila Rosamilia Kantovitz

Received 19 November 2016; Revised 1 April 2017; Accepted 6 April 2017; Published 22 May 2017

Academic Editor: Vijaya Kumar Rangari

Copyright © 2017 Daniela Dellosso Cibim et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


The aim of this study was to assess the performance of glass ionomer cement (GIC) added with TiO2 nanotubes. TiO2 nanotubes [3%, 5%, and 7% (w/w)] were incorporated into GIC’s (Ketac Molar EasyMix™) powder component, whereas unblended powder was used as control. Physical-chemical-biological analysis included energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS), surface roughness (SR), Knoop hardness (SH), fluoride-releasing analysis, cytotoxicity, cell morphology, and extracellular matrix (ECM) composition. Parametric or nonparametric ANOVA were used for statistical comparisons (). Data analysis revealed that EDS only detected Ti at the 5% and 7% groups and that GIC’s physical-chemical properties were significantly improved by the addition of 5% TiO2 as compared to 3% and GIC alone. Furthermore, regardless of TiO2 concentration, no significant effect was found on SR, whereas GIC-containing 7% TiO2 presented decreased SH values. Fluoride release lasted longer for the 5% and 7% TiO2 groups, and cell morphology/spreading and ECM composition were found to be positively affected by TiO2 at 5%. In conclusion, in the current study, nanotechnology incorporated in GIC affected ECM composition and was important for the superior microhardness and fluoride release, suggesting its potential for higher stress-bearing site restorations.