• Users Online: 47
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Year : 2023  |  Volume : 7  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 6-10

In vitro evaluation of the compressive strength of glass ionomer cement modified with propolis in different proportions

1 Department of Dental Materials, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Trisakti, Jakarta, Indonesia
2 Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Mathematics and Sciences, IPB University, Bogor, Indonesia

Correspondence Address:
Deviyanti Pratiwi
Department of Dental Materials, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Trisakti, Jl. Kyai Tapa No. 1, RW.9, Tomang, Kec. Grogol Petamburan, Kota Jakarta Barat, Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta 11440
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/SDJ.SDJ_1_23

Rights and Permissions

Background: Antibacterial additives are frequently added in an effort to enhance the antibacterial properties of glass ionomer cement (GIC). GIC modified with ethanolic extract of propolis (EEP) has been proven to improve GIC’s antibacterial properties, but this modification is suspected to have detrimental impacts on its compressive strength. Objectives: To evaluate the compressive strength of GIC incorporated with different proportions of propolis extracts from Trigona spp. from Garut, Indonesia. Methods: This experimental in vitro laboratory study comsisted of 20 cylindrical glass ionomer specimens divided into four groups according to the proportions of propolis added to the GIC liquid: Group A: conventional GIC (control), Group B: 25% EEP added (% w/w), Group C: 30% EEP added (% w/w), and Group D: 35% EEP added (% w/w). A universal testing machine was used to assess compressive strength after the samples were immersed in artificial saliva and incubated for 24 h. Data were analyzed with one-way analysis of variance and Tukey’s test (P < 0.05). Results: The addition of EEP decreased the compressive strength of the GIC liner. Mean compressive strength values were 118.06 ± 24.1 MPa (Group A), 103.17 ± 10.26 MPa (Group B), 79.18 ± 9.99 MPa (Group C), and 77.03 ± 6.13 MPa (Group D). In comparison to the control group, a nonsignificant difference was observed when 25% EEP was added (P > 0.05), whereas both 30% EEP and 35% EEP resulted in significant decreases in compressive strength (P < 0.05). Conclusion: GIC modified with 25% EEP might be a promising restorative material for cavity linings.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded38    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal