Effects of self‐etch adhesives used as surface coating agents on microleakage of conventional and resin modified glass ionomer cements

2011 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-57
Author(s):  
S Bayrak ◽  
E Sen Tunc ◽  
N Tuloglu ◽  
G Ceylan
2019 ◽  
pp. 61-67
Author(s):  
Xuan Anh Ngoc Ho ◽  
Anh Chi Phan ◽  
Toai Nguyen

Background: Class II restoration with zirconia inlay is concerned by numerous studies about the luting coupling between zirconia inlay and teeth. The present study was performed to evaluate the microleakage of Class II zirconia inlayusing two different luting agents and compare to direct restoration using bulk fill composite. Aims: To evaluate the microleakage of Class II restorations using three different techniques. Materials and methods: The study was performed in laboratory with three groups. Each of thirty extracted human teeth was prepared a class II cavity with the same dimensions, then these teeth were randomly divided into 3 groups restored by 3 different approaches. Group 1: zirconia inlay cemented with self-etch resin cement (Multilink N); Group 2: zirconia inlay cemented with resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Fuji Plus); Group 3: direct composite restoration using bulk fill composite(Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill). All restorations were subjected to thermal cycling (100 cycles 50C – 55 0C), then immersed to 2% methylene blue solution for 24 hours. The microleakage determined by the extent of dye penetration along the gingival wall was assessed using two methods: quantitative and semi-quantitative method. Results: Among three types of restorations, group 1 demonstrated the significantly lower rate of leakage compared to the others, while group 2 and 3 showed no significant difference. Conclusion: Zirconia inlay restoration cemented with self-etch resin cement has least microleakage degree when compare to class II zirconia inlay restoration cemented with resin-modified glass ionomer cement and direct composite restoration using bulk fill composite. Key words: inlay, zirconia ceramic, class II restoration, microleakage.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zuleikha Malik ◽  
Danial Qasim Butt ◽  
Zainab Qasim Butt ◽  
Nawshad Muhammad ◽  
Muhammad Kaleem ◽  
...  

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 ◽  
...  

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document