scholarly journals Water Absorption and HEMA Release of Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomers

2009 ◽  
Vol 03 (04) ◽  
pp. 267-272 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nilufer Celebi Beriat ◽  
Dilek Nalbant
Keyword(s):  
Water Absorption ◽  
High Performance ◽  
Deionized Water ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Time Intervals ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Glass Containers ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
The Difference

ABSTRACTObjectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the water absorption and the amount of hydroxyethyl metacrylate (HEMA) level released from various resin modified glass ionomer cements.Methods: Advance, Vitremer and Protec-Cem resin modified glass ionomer cements were used to evaluate the HEMA release. Ten specimens were fabricated from each cement in 10 × 1 mm height. Thirty specimens were immersed in glass containers filled with 20 ml deionized water. 1 ml solution was taken from the container at 10 minutes, 1 hour, 24 hour and 7 days intervals from each group and analyzed with high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) machine and the results are presented in ppm. The data were subjected to Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon tests at a 0.05 significance level.Results: At all time intervals Vitremer showed highest HEMA release (10 min: 54.2 ppm; 1 h: 86.8 ppm; 24 h: 93.4 ppm) (P=0.0001). At the end of 10 minutes and first hour, following Vitremer, HEMA release was highest for Protec-Cem (10 min: 14.8 ppm; 1 h: 23.6 ppm) and then Advance (10 min: 5.5 ppm; 1 h: 18.8 ppm) (P<.05). Water absorption tests were performed according to the specifications of ISO 4049. Water absorption was highest for Vitremer and lowest for the Protec-Cem and the difference among cement groups was significant (P<.005).Conclusions: Vitremer showed the highest HEMA release and water absorption values and Protec-Cem showed the lowest values. HEMA release by time was significant for Advance cement. This release may be relevant both to the risk of adverse pulpal responses in patients and to the risk of allergy in patients and dental personnel. (Eur J Dent 2009;3:267-272)

scholarly journals The effect of different organic solvents on the degradation of restorative materials

2013 ◽  
Vol 07 (03) ◽  
pp. 347-351 ◽  
Author(s):  
Josué Martos ◽  
Luiz Fernando Machado Silveira ◽  
Carina Folgearini Silveira ◽  
Luis Antonio Suita de Castro ◽  
Carmen María Ferrer-Luque
Keyword(s):  
Organic Solvents ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Distilled Water ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Orange Oil ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Eucalyptus Oil ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
The Difference

ABSTRACT Objective: To evaluate the solubility of three restorative materials exposed to the different endodontic solvents. Materials and Methods: The organic solvents eucalyptus oil, xylol, chloroform, and orange oil, with distilled water as the control group was utilized. The restorative materials light-cured resin (Filtek Z250/3M ESPE), light-cured-resin-reinforced glass ionomer (Riva Light Cure LC/Southern Dental Industries SDI]) and resin-modified glass ionomer (Vitremer/3M ESPE) were analyzed. A total of 50 disks containing specimens (2 mm Χ 8 mm Ø) were prepared for each of the three classes of restorative materials, which were divided into 10 groups (n = 5) for immersion in eucalyptus oil, xylol, chloroform, orange oil or distilled water for periods of either 2 min or 10 min. The means of restorative material disintegration in solvents were obtained by the difference between the original preimmersion weight and the postimmersion weight in a digital analytical scale. Data were statistically analyzed by two-way analysis of variance while the difference between the materials was analyzed by Student-Newman-Keuls test. The significance level set at 0.05. Results: Vitremer showed the highest solubility, followed by Riva LC, and these were statistically different from eucalyptus oil, xylol, chloroform, and distilled water (P < 0.05). Regarding the immersion time in solvents, there were no significant differences between the two tested periods (P > 0.05). Conclusions: The solvents minimally degraded the composite resin, although they did influence the degradation of both resin-modified glass ionomer resin and resin reinforced with glass ionomer.

Evolution of Anticariogenic Resin‐Modified Glass Ionomer Cements

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zuleikha Malik ◽  
Danial Qasim Butt ◽  
Zainab Qasim Butt ◽  
Nawshad Muhammad ◽  
Muhammad Kaleem ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer

scholarly journals Assessment of the mechanical properties of glass ionomer cements for orthodontic cementation

2012 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 154-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcel M. Farret ◽  
Eduardo Martinelli de Lima ◽  
Eduardo Gonçalves Mota ◽  
Hugo Mitsuo S. Oshima ◽  
Gabriela Maguilnik ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Properties ◽  
Tensile Strength ◽  
Compressive Strength ◽  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Strength Tests ◽  
Diametral Tensile Strength

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the mechanical properties of three glass ionomers cements (GICs) used for band cementation in Orthodontics. METHODS: Two conventional glass ionomers (Ketac Cem Easy mix/3M-ESPE and Meron/Voco) and one resin modified glass ionomer (Multi-cure Glass ionomer/3M-Unitek) were selected. For the compressive strength and diametral tensile strength tests, 12 specimens were made of each material. For the microhardness test 15 specimens were made of each material and for the shear bond strength tests 45 bovine permanent incisors were used mounted in a self-cure acrylic resin. Then, band segments with a welded bracket were cemented on the buccal surface of the crowns. For the mechanical tests of compressive and diametral tensile strength and shear bond strength a universal testing machine was used with a crosshead speed of 1,0 mm/min and for the Vickers microhardness analysis tests a Microdurometer was used with 200 g of load during 15 seconds. The results were submitted to statistical analysis through ANOVA complemented by Tukey's test at a significance level of 5%. RESULTS: The results shown that the Multi-Cure Glass Ionomer presented higher diametral tensile strength (p < 0.01) and compressive strength greater than conventional GICs (p = 0.08). Moreover, Ketac Cem showed significant less microhardness (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The resin-modified glass ionomer cement showed high mechanical properties, compared to the conventional glass ionomer cements, which had few differences between them.

scholarly journals Effect of one-bottle adhesive systems on the fluoride release of a resin-modified glass ionomer

2004 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Wang ◽  
Marília Afonso Rabelo Buzalaf ◽  
Maria Teresa Atta
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Difference ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Fluoride Release ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
The One ◽  
In The Beginning

A dhesive systems associated to resin-modified glass ionomer cements are employed for the achievement of a higher bond strength to dentin. Despite this benefit, other properties should not be damaged. This study aimed at evaluating the short-time fluoride release of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement coated with two one-bottle adhesive systems in a pH cycling system. Four combinations were investigated: G1: Vitremer (V); G2: Vitremer + Primer (VP); G3: Vitremer + Single Bond (VSB) and G4: Vitremer + Prime & Bond 2.1 (VPB). SB is a fluoride-free and PB is a fluoride-containing system. After preparation of the Vitremer specimens, two coats of the selected adhesive system were carefully applied and light-cured. Specimens were immersed in demineralizing solution for 6 hours followed by immersion in remineralizing solution for 18 hours, totalizing the 15-day cycle. All groups released fluoride in a similar pattern, with a greater release in the beginning and decreasing with time. VP showed the greatest fluoride release, followed by V, with no statistical difference. VSB and VPB released less fluoride compared to V and VP, with statistical difference. Regardless the one-bottle adhesive system, application of coating decreased the fluoride release from the resin-modified glass ionomer cements. This suggests that this combination would reduce the beneficial effect of the restorative material to the walls around the restoration.

Shear Bond Strength of Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cements to Er:YAG Laser-treated Tooth Structure

10.2341/05-13 ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 212-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. E. Souza-Gabriel ◽  
F. L. B. Amaral ◽  
J. D. Pécora ◽  
R. G. Palma-Dibb ◽  
S. A. M. Corona
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Clinical Relevance ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Er:Yag Laser ◽  
Alternative Technique ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Tooth Structure ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer

Clinical Relevance Er:YAG laser adversely affected the adhesion of resin-modified glass ionomer cements to tooth structure and cannot be considered an alternative technique to the conventional turbine handpiece.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document