Comparison of capsule-mixed versus hand-mixed glass ionomer cements Part II: Porosity


  • Samantha Arnold School of Dentistry, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria, 31 Bophelo Road, Prinshof Campus, Riviera, Pretoria, 0002, South Africa
  • Glynn D Buchanan School of Dentistry, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria, 31 Bophelo Road, Prinshof Campus, Riviera, Pretoria
  • Nichola Warren Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria, 31 Bophelo Road, Prinshof Campus, Riviera, Pretoria, 0002, South Africa.
  • N Potgieter Paediatric Dentistry, University of the Western Cape, Robert Sobukwe Road, Bellville, Cape Town,



Glass ionomer cement, Capsule-mix, Handmix, Micro-CT, Porosity


Glass ionomer restorative cements (GIC) are routinely used in dental practice. During mixing, air incorporation may lead to higher porosity with subsequent weakening of the cement. The degree of porosity will determine whether capsule-mixed or hand-mixed GIC are mechanically stronger for clinical use. To compare the porosity of four commercially available dental glass ionomer cements, supplied in both hand mix and capsule-mix formulations, by evaluating number of voids (%), total volume of voids (mm3 ) and volume percentage of voids (%). Eighty samples were manufactured from hand-mixed GIC: Riva Self Cure; Fuji IX GP ; Ketac Universal, Ketac Molar Easymix, and equivalent capsule-mixed GIC: Riva Self Cure; Fuji IX GP ; Ketac Universal Aplicap and Ketac Molar Aplicap. Micro-CT scanning was used to evaluate porosity. The number of voids (mm3 ), total volume of voids (mm3 ) and the volume percentage of voids (%) were calculated.


Download data is not yet available.


Metrics Loading ...


Cho S, Cheng AC. A review of glass ionomer restorations in the primary dentition. J Can Dent Assoc. 1999; 65:491-5.

Seemann R, Flury S, Pfefferkorn F, Lussi A, Noack MJ. Restorative dentistry and restorative materials over the next 20 years: A delphi survey. Dent Mater. 2014; 30(4):442-8.

Browning WD. The benefits of glass ionomer selfadhesive materials in restorative dentistry. Compend Contin Educ Dent. (Jamesburg, NJ: 1995). 2006; 27(5):308-14; quiz 15-16.

De Moor RJ, Verbeeck RM, De Maeyer EA. Fluoride release profiles of restorative glass ionomer formulations. Dent Mater. 1996; 12(2):88-95.

Šalinović I, Stunja M, Schauperl Z, Verzak Ž, Malčić AI, Rajić VB. Mechanical properties of high viscosity glass ionomer and glass hybrid restorative materials. Act Stomato Croa. 2019; 53(2):125-31.

3M ESPE Deutschland GmbH [Internet]. Product specification for Ketac Universal Aplicap. 3m ESPE Germany Online Resources I [Internet] http:// [updated 16 Aug 2016; cited 2019 24 July].

Croll TP, Nicholson J. Glass ionomer cements in pediatric dentistry: Review of the literature. Pediatr Dent. 2002; 24(5):423-9.

Dowling AH, Fleming GJ. Are encapsulated anterior glass-ionomer restoratives better than their handmixed equivalents? J Dent. 2009; 37(2):133-40.

Wilson AD, Nicholson JW. Acid-base cements: Their biomedical and industrial applications: Cambridge University Press; 2005.

Dowling AH, Fleming GJ. Is encapsulation of posterior glass-ionomer restoratives the solution to clinically induced variability introduced on mixing? Dent Mater. 2008; 24(7):957-66.

3 M ESPE Canada [Internet]. Product specification for Ketac Molar Quick Aplicap. 3m ESPE Canada Multimedia Online Resources I [Internet] [updated 19 Jan 2012; cited 2019 15 August].

Nomoto R, McCabe JF. Effect of mixing methods on the compressive strength of glass ionomer cements. J Dent. 2001; 29(3):205-10.

Nomoto R, Komoriyama M, McCabe JF, Hirano S. Effect of mixing method on the porosity of encapsulated glass ionomer cement. Dent Mater. 2004; 20(10):972-8.

Mitchell C, Douglas W. Comparison of the porosity of hand-mixed and capsulated glass-ionomer luting cements. Biomater. 1997; 18(16):1127-31.

Fleming GJ, Kenny SM, Barralet JE. The optimisation of the initial viscosity of an encapsulated glass-ionomer restorative following different mechanical mixing regimes. J Dent. 2006; 34(2):155-63.

Kaushik M, Sharma R, Reddy P, Pathak P, Udameshi P, Vallakuruchi Jayabal N. Comparative evaluation of voids present in conventional and capsulated glass ionomer cements using two different conditioners: An in vitro study. Int J Biomater. 2014; 2014(Article ID 935240):1-5.

Xie D, Brantley W, Culbertson B, Wang G. Mechanical properties and microstructures of glass-ionomer cements. Dent Mater. 2000; 16(2):129-38.

Fleming G, Zala D. An assessment of encapsulated versus hand-mixed glass ionomer restoratives. Oper Dent. 2003; 28(2):168-77.

McKinney J, Antonucci J, Rupp N. Wear and microhardness of glass-ionomer cements. J Dent Res. 1987; 66(6):1134-9.

Fleming GJ, Farooq AA, Barralet JE. Influence of RESEARCH < 71powder/liquid mixing ratio on the performance of a restorative glass-ionomer dental cement. Biomater. 2003; 24(23):4173-9.

Fleming GJ, Dowling AH, Addison O. The crushing truth about glass ionomer restoratives: Exposing the standard of the standard. J Dent. 2012; 40(3):181-8.

Billington R, Williams J, Pearson G. Variation in powder/liquid ratio of a restorative glass-ionomer cement used in dental practice. Br Dent J. 1990; 169(6):164-7.

GC America [Internet]. Operatory instructions for GC Fuji IX GP capsules. GC America Online Resources I [Internet] http://www .gcamerica. com /products/operatory/GC_Fuji_IX_GP/325282-GCFujiIXGP-IFU4L.pdf [updated 5 Apr 2019; cited 2019 16 September].

Baig MS, Dowling AH, Fleming GJ. Hertzian indentation testing of glass-ionomer restoratives: A reliable and clinically relevant testing approach. J Dent. . 2013; 41(11):968-73.

Coldebella CR, Santos‐Pinto L, Zuanon ACC. Effect of ultrasonic excitation on the porosity of glass ionomer cement: A scanning electron microscope evaluation. Microsc Res Tech. 2011; 74(1):54-7.

Ban S, Hasegawa J, Anusavice K. Effect of loading conditions on bi-axial flexure strength of dental cements. Dent Mater. 1992; 8(2):100-4.

Menne-Happ U, Ilie N. Effect of heat application on the mechanical behaviour of glass ionomer cements. Clin Oral Investig. 2014; 18(2):643-50.

Yap A, Cheang P, Chay P. Mechanical properties of two restorative reinforced glass–ionomer cements. J Oral Rehabil. 2002; 29(7):682-8.

Zoergiebel J, Ilie N. Evaluation of a conventional glass ionomer cement with new zinc formulation: Effect of coating, aging and storage agents. Clin Oral Investig. 2013; 17(2):619-26.

Prentice LH, Tyas MJ, Burrow MF. The effect of mixing time on the handling and compressive strength of an encapsulated glass-ionomer cement. Dent Mater. 2005; 21(8):704-8.

Hamid DMA, Mahmoud GM, El-Sharkawy FM, Auf EAA. Effect of surface protection, staining beverages and aging on the color stability and hardness of recently introduced uncoated glass ionomer restorative material. Fut Dent J. 2018; 4(2):288-96.

Hoffman JW, De Beer F, editors. Characteristics of the micro-focus x-ray tomography facility (mixrad) at necsa in south africa. 18th World Conference on Nondestructive Testing; 2012.

Chen X, Cuijpers V, Fan M, Frencken J. Marginal leakage of two newer glass-ionomer-based sealant materials assessed using micro-ct. journal of dentistry. 2010; 38(9):731-5.

Al-Kadhim A, Abdullah H, Mahmood A. Effect of porosity on compressive strength of glass ionomer cements. Malays Dent J. 2012; 34(1):23-9.

Issa M, Brunton P, Silikas N, Watts D. Expulsion force, surface ph, and porosity of encapsulated glass-ionomer cements mixed with a rotomix device. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2002; 10(3):119-23.




How to Cite

Arnold, S. ., Buchanan, G. D. ., Warren, N. ., & Potgieter, N. . (2022). Comparison of capsule-mixed versus hand-mixed glass ionomer cements Part II: Porosity . South African Dental Journal, 77(02), 65–72.