Comparative Evaluation of Commercial Glass Ionomer Cements Comparative Evaluation of Three Commercially Available Conventional Glass Ionomer Cements Based on Physicomechanical Properties, Surface Microhardness, And Antibacterial Activity: An In Vitro Study

Abstract

Background Revised: 10th June, 2026; Accepted: 2026 8th July, 2026; Available Online: 20th July, Conventional glass ionomer cements (GICs) are widely used restorative materials owing to their chemical adhesion to tooth structure, fluoride-releasing ability, biocompatibility, and cariostatic properties. Differences in the composition and formulation of commercially available conventional GICs may influence their physicomechanical, surface, and antibacterial characteristics, thereby affecting their clinical performance. Aim To compare the setting time, flexural strength, compressive strength, surface microhardness following a demineralization-remineralization challenge, and antibacterial activity of three commercially available conventional glass ionomer cements. Materials and Methods Three commercially available conventional glass ionomer cements (Crysta Restorative II, Lute Glass, and Prism Cem Type II) were evaluated under standardized laboratory conditions. Setting time was determined according to ISO 9917-1-2007. Flexural strength and compressive strength were evaluated using a universal testing machine in accordance with ISO standards. Surface microhardness was assessed using the Vickers microhardness test at baseline, after demineralization, and after remineralization. Antibacterial activity against Streptococcus mutans and Staphylococcus aureus was evaluated using the agar well diffusion method. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA, repeated measures ANOVA, and two-way ANOVA, followed by appropriate post hoc tests (p < 0.05). Results Statistically significant differences were observed among the evaluated glass ionomer cements with respect to setting time, flexural strength, compressive strength, surface microhardness, and antibacterial activity (p < 0.05). All materials demonstrate difference was found between Streptococcus mutans and Staphylococcus aureus. Conclusion Within the limitations of this in vitro study, the three commercially available conventional glass ionomer cements demonstrated significant differences in their physicomechanical, surface, and antibacterial properties, indicating that their overall performance is material dependent. These findings may assist clinicians in selecting appropriate GICs for specific clinical applications and provide bassline data for future long-term laboratory and clinical investigations.