Background: glass carbomers, such as GCP glass Fill, are a type of GICs, which have nanosized apatite added to their composition. The manufacturer describes this material to have remineralizing properties.Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the bioactivity of this material and the effect of finishing by thermocuring and gloss on its properties.Methods: Bioactivity was measured by Ca and PO4 release studies, SEM, FT-IR, as well as EDX. Mechanical properties were measured by a compressive strength test.Results: Cements of all finishing types (with/without gloss and/or thermocuring) had comparable and acceptable initial compressive strengths. After an incubation period, all strengths decreased.Conclusions: Although GCP glass Fill should be Bioactive, no signs of bioactivity after incubation in SBF were observed. Moreover, the finishing conditions with glass and thermocuring do not improve the mechanical properties of the cement. Therefore, this material is not superior to e.g. GICs.

Objective: Osseous defects arounddental implants are often seen when implants are placed in areas with inadequate alveolar bone, or around failing implants. Bone regenera-tion in these areas using bone grafts or its substitutes may improve dental implants prog-nosis. The aim of this study was to prepare and characterize the Bioactive glass nanopow-der and development of its coating for treatment of oral bone defects. Materials and Methods: Bioactive bioglass coating was made on stainless steel plates by sol-gel technique. The powder shape and size was evaluated by transmission electron mi-cropscopy, and thermal properties studied using differential thermal analysis (DTA). Structural characterization techniques (XRD) were used to analyze and study the structure and phase present in the prepared Bioactive glass nanopowder. This nanopowder was immersed in the simulated body fluid (SBF) solution. Fourier transform infrared spec-troscopy (FTIR) was utilized to recognize and confirm the formation of apatite layer on prepared Bioactive glass nanopowder. Results: The bioglass powder size was less than 100 nanometers which was necessary for better bioactivity, and preparing a homogeneous coating. The formation of apatite layer confirmed the bioactivity of the bioglass nanopowder. Crack-free and homogeneous bioglass coatings were achieved with no observable defects. Conclusion: It was concluded that the prepared Bioactive glass nanopowder could be more effective as a bone replacement material than conventional Bioactive glass to pro-mote bone formation in osseous defects. The prepared Bioactive glass nanopowder could be more useful for treatment of oral bone defects compare to conventional hydroxyapatite or Bioactive glass.

Nowadays, zirconia has been favored greatly for dental implants; however its disadvantages such as poor mechanical properties and brittleness makes it unsuitable. On the other hand, Bioactive glasses coating have been utilized on tougher substrates such as zirconia. Bioactive glass coatings can decrease the healing time and hence accelerate the formation of the bond between bone and implant. Hence, in this study, we introduce the novel zirconia/Bioactive glass composites with high mechanical strength and bioactivity to achieve the ideal implant in dentistry. Furthermore, a review of Bioactive glass coatings (i. e., 45S5 and 58S) on zirconia as well as surface modification methods (i. e., sol-gel, laser cladding, plasma spraying, etc. ) is provided.