# Comparative Analysis of Erosion and Erosion-Abrasion Resistance of Bioactive Glass Ionomer-Based Restorative Materials: A Surface Characterization Study

## TL;DR

This study compares how different bioactive glass ionomer materials resist erosion and abrasion, finding that one material performs better than others.

## Contribution

The study provides new comparative evidence on erosion and abrasion resistance of bioactive glass ionomer materials under simulated oral conditions.

## Key findings

- All materials showed increased surface roughness after erosion and erosive–abrasive exposure.
- ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative (AC) exhibited the lowest surface roughness across all conditions.
- Zirconomer Improved (ZI) and Riva Self Cure (RS) showed the highest roughness, especially under erosive–abrasive conditions.

## Abstract

Recently developed bioactive and reinforced glass ionomer cement (GIC) formulations may offer improved resistance to acid and mechanical wear compared to conventional formulations. Yet, comparative evidence under simulated oral conditions remains limited. This study evaluated the effect of erosive and erosive–abrasive challenges on the surface properties of five GIC-based restorative materials: Riva Self Cure (RS), Zirconomer Improved (ZI), Fuji II LC (FII), Equia Forte HT Fil + Equia Forte Coat (EQ), and ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative (AC). Standardized specimens from each material were immersed in artificial saliva, citric acid, or citric acid combined with simulated brushing. Surface roughness (Ra and Rq, µm) was measured, followed by qualitative surface characterization using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Both material type and treatment condition significantly affected Ra and Rq values, with a significant interaction (p < 0.001). Erosive and erosive–abrasive challenges significantly increased surface roughness for all materials (p < 0.001). AC consistently exhibited the lowest values across all conditions, while ZI and RS showed the highest roughness, particularly under erosive–abrasive challenge. FII and EQ demonstrated intermediate performance. SEM observations corroborated profilometric findings, revealing material-dependent degradation patterns. All materials showed increased roughness following erosive and erosive–abrasive exposure. However, AC showed a comparatively more favorable profile than the other materials.