Early and long-term wear of ‘Fast-set’ conventional glass–ionomer cements

2005 ◽  
Vol 21 (8) ◽  
pp. 716-720 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raimond N.B. van Duinen ◽  
Cornelis J. Kleverlaan ◽  
Anton J. de Gee ◽  
Arie Werner ◽  
Albert J. Feilzer
2009 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 290-295 ◽  
Author(s):  
Norhazlin Zainuddin ◽  
Natalia Karpukhina ◽  
Robert G. Hill ◽  
Robert V. Law

Biomaterials ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 12 (7) ◽  
pp. 658-660 ◽  
Author(s):  
G.J. Pearson ◽  
A.S. Atkinson

1994 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria-Angeles Cattani-Lorente ◽  
Chantal Godin ◽  
Jean-Marc Meyer

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 331-336 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammed Almuhaiza

ABSTRACT Glass-ionomer cements (GICs) are mainstream restorative materials that are bioactive and have a wide range of uses, such as lining, bonding, sealing, luting or restoring a tooth. Although the major characteristics of GICs for the wider applications in dentistry are adhesion to tooth structure, fluoride releasing capacity and tooth-colored restorations, the sensitivity to moisture, inherent opacity, long-term wear and strength are not as adequate as desired. They have undergone remarkable changes in their composition, such as the addition of metallic ions or resin components to their composition, which contributed to improve their physical properties and diversified their use as a restorative material of great clinical applicability. The lightcured polymer reinforced materials appear to have substantial benefits, while retaining the advantages of fluoride release and adhesion. Further research should be directed towards improving the properties, such as strength and esthetics without altering its inherent qualities, such as adhesion and fluoride releasing capabilities. How to cite this article Almuhaiza M. Glass-ionomer Cements in Restorative Dentistry: A Critical Appraisal. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(4):331-336.


Biomaterials ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 19 (18) ◽  
pp. 1703-1713 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Kanchanavasita ◽  
H.M. Anstice ◽  
G.J. Pearson

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (12) ◽  
pp. 1717-1726
Author(s):  
Candice A. Bellis ◽  
Owen Addison ◽  
Angela H. Nobbs ◽  
Peter F. Duckworth ◽  
James A. Holder ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. 307-319
Author(s):  
I. Yanishen ◽  
O. Sidorovа ◽  
O. Berezhna ◽  
L. Saliya ◽  
V. Bugaiev

Preservation and restoration of dental health of patients is achieved by early detection and treatment of diseases, finding ways of individual prevention, detection and elimination of risk factors for their development. The amount of materials significantly increased used to restore the integrity of teeth and dentition. Among them are dental materials for permanent fixation of indirect non-removable restorations. The material is used to fill the space between the inner surface of the artificial structure and the support element. This helps to mechanically fix the restoration in place to prevent its displacement during chewing. The correct choice of dental material for permanent fixation is an important decision and will determine the long-term success of permanent restorations. The aim of the study is to analyze the durability using non-removable structures of dentures mounted on different glass ionomer cements.


2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 98-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rogério Lacerda dos Santos ◽  
Matheus Melo Pithon ◽  
Delmo Santiago Vaitsman ◽  
Mônica Tirre de Souza Araújo ◽  
Margareth Maria Gomes de Souza ◽  
...  

The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that there is no difference in the fluoride release behavior of resin-reinforced glass ionomer cements before or after fluoride recharge. The materials were divided into 5 groups: 2 resin-reinforced glass ionomer cements used for attaching orthodontic bands, that is, group FOB (Fuji Ortho Band) and group MCB (Multi-Cure Glass Ionomer Orthodontic Band Cement); 2 resin-reinforced glass ionomer cements and a composite used for bonding orthodontic brackets, that is, group OGLC (Ortho Glass LC), group FOLC (Fuji Ortho LC), and group TXT (Transbond XT), respectively. Fluoride release was measured during a 60-day period by using selective ion electrodes connected to an ionic analyser. After 4 weeks, the samples were exposed to 0.221% sodium fluoride solution. The results showed that cements achieved a maximum fluoride release 24 h after initial setting. No statistically significant differences were observed between groups FOB and OGLC regarding the amount of released fluoride following fluoride recharge from day 31 to day 36 (p>0.05). In conclusion, FOB and OGLC cements showed a higher capacity of capturing and releasing fluoride compared to the other cements studied.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document