scholarly journals Proximal retention grooves may increase early fracture strength of ART restorations

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. Process
Author(s):  
Érica Fernandes ◽  
Maria Cristina Freitas ◽  
Paula Oltramani-Navarro ◽  
Ricardo Navarro ◽  
Rafael Menezes-Silva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fracture Resistance ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Test Machine ◽  
Retention Data ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Solution Ph ◽  
Nail Polish ◽  
Edta Solution ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Objective: To evaluate the fracture resistance (RF) of Class II Glass-ionomer Cement (GIC) ART restorations with and without proximal retentions. Material and Methods: 20 freshly extracted human molars were used. Forty (40) standard Mesial-Occlusal (MO) and Distal-Occlusal (DO) preparations (20 for each material) were performed with a 245 bur. The unprepared surfaces of the teeth were protected with nail polish and the specimens submerged in 0.5Mol EDTA solution, pH 7.4 for 8h under stirring. The preparations were finished with dentine spoons and 50% received proximal retention with # 3 excavators. 20 cavities were restored with Chemfil Rock (10 with retention and 10 without retention) and 20 cavities were restored with Equia Fil (10 with retention and 10 with no retention) and were stored in an oven at 37ºC and 100% relative humidity for 24h and submitted to axial compression loading in Test Machine - EMIC at a rate of 0.5 mm / minute, until restoration fracture occurred. The values were analyzed by two-way ANOVA (p<0.05). Results: ChemFil Rock presented 300.84 (69.20) (without retention) and 361.70 (81.08) (with retention) and Equia Fil showed 314.60 (69.97) (without retention) and 366.67 (103.38) (with retention). Data obtained with retention were statistically superior to those obtained with non-retained ART restorations (p=0.014). No statistical differences were detected between materials (p=0.761). Conclusion: Retentive grooves improved fracture resistance of Class II GIC ART restorations. KeywordsDental materials; ART; Glass ionomer cements.

Microleakage of class II restoration with zirconia inlay: An in vitro study

2019 ◽  
pp. 61-67
Author(s):  
Xuan Anh Ngoc Ho ◽  
Anh Chi Phan ◽  
Toai Nguyen
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Ionomer Cement ◽  
Group 1 ◽  
Composite Restoration

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.

scholarly journals In vitro quantitative evaluation of marginal microleakage in class II restorations confected with a glass ionomer cement and two composite resins

2001 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 277-282 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Fernanda Borro BIJELLA ◽  
Maria Francisca Thereza Borro BIJELLA ◽  
Salete Moura Bonifácio da SILVA
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Deionized Water ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Dye Penetration ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Distal Direction ◽  
Ionomer Cement

This study evaluated, in vitro, marginal microleakage in class II restorations confected with the glass ionomer cement Vitremer and with the composite resins Ariston pHc and P-60. The aims of the study were to assess the effect of thermocycling on those materials and to evaluate two methods utilized in the analysis of dye penetration. Sixty premolars divided in three groups were utilized; the teeth had proximal cavities whose cervical walls were located 1 mm below the cementoenamel junction. Half of the test specimens from each group underwent thermocycling; the other half remained in deionized water, at 37ºC. The specimens were immersed, for 24 hours, in a basic 0.5% fuchsin solution at 37ºC. For the analysis of microleakage, the specimens were sectioned in a mesio-distal direction, and the observation was carried out with the software Imagetools. The results were evaluated through the 2-way ANOVA and through the Tukey’s test. All groups presented marginal microleakage. The smallest values were obtained with Vitremer, followed by those obtained with the composite resins P-60 and Ariston pHc. There was no statistically significant difference caused by thermocycling, and the method of maximum infiltration was the best for detecting the extension of microleakage.

Clinical Performance of Heat-Cured High-Viscosity Glass Ionomer Class II Restorations in Primary Molars: A Preliminary Study

2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 264-270 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eliyahu Tal ◽  
Ari Kupietzky ◽  
Anna B Fuks ◽  
Nili Tickotsky ◽  
Moti Moskovitz
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
High Viscosity ◽  
Primary Molars ◽  
Restorative Material ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Recall Time ◽  
Preliminary Study ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Objectives: The present preliminary study evaluated the clinical and radiographic performances of heat-cured high viscosity glass ionomer (HCHVGI) in class II restorations of primary molars. Study design: A retrospective study on a cohort of patients who had dental caries restored at a private practice was conducted. Restorations were evaluated radiographically and photographically by two separate examiners. Results: Ninety-three Class II restorations in 44 patients (average age: 108 months ± 25.3, 24 males, 20 females) were examined. Average recall time was 22.2 months ± 4.2. All but three restorations (96.8%) were present and intact, with no incidents of secondary caries. Three additional restorations had occlusal defects that required retreatment, resulting in an overall success rate of 93.5%. Ninety-seven percent of the restorations were rated optimal for marginal integrity with no staining of the restoration surfaces. No patients complained of post-operative sensitivity. The most common flaw found was a concavity on the proximal wall of the cavity box (27%, mean age 16 months ± 3.9). Conclusion: The findings in this preliminary study suggest that heat cured high viscosity glass ionomer cement may be an effective restorative material for Class II restorations in primary molars that are a year or two from shedding.

A Retrospective Study of the 3-Year Survival Rate of Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Cement Class II Restorations in Primary Molars

2016 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Webman ◽  
Ezat Mulki ◽  
Rosie Roldan ◽  
Oscar Arevalo ◽  
John F Roberts ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Survival Rate ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Radiographic Evaluation ◽  
Primary Molars ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Design Data ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Objective: To determine the three-year survival rate of Class II resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC), Vitremer, restorations in primary molars and to compare these results with measurements of survival of Class II restorations of standard restorative materials. Study Design: Data on Class II restorations placed in primary molars during a six-year period were collected through a chart review and radiographic evaluation in the office of a board-certified pediatric dentist. A radiograph showing that the restoration was intact was required at least 3 years after placement to qualify as successful. If no radiograph existed, the restoration was excluded. If the restoration was not found to be intact radiographically or was charted as having been replaced before three years it was recorded as a failure. The results of this study were then compared to other standard restorative materials using normalized annual failure rates. Results: Of the 1,231 Class II resinmodified glass-ionomer cement restorations placed over six years 427 met the inclusion criteria. There was a 97.42% survival rate for a 3-year period equivalent to an annual failure rate of 0.86%. Conclusions: A novel approach comparing materials showed that in this study Vitremer compared very favorably to previously published success rates of other standard restorative materials (amalgam, composite, stainless steel crown, compomer) and other RMGIC studies.

Effect of Restorative Protocol on Cuspal Strain and Residual Stress in Endodontically Treated Molars

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
RAS Pereira ◽  
AA Bicalho ◽  
SD Franco ◽  
D Tantbirojn ◽  
A Versluis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Residual Stress ◽  
Fracture Resistance ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Shrinkage Strain ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Pulp Chamber ◽  
Biomechanical Behavior ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Ionomer Cement

SUMMARY Objectives To evaluate the effect of the restorative protocol on cuspal strain, fracture resistance, residual stress, and mechanical properties of restorative materials in endodontically treated molars. Methods Forty-five molars received mesio-occlusal-distal (MOD) Class II preparations and endodontic treatment followed by direct restorations using three restorative protocols: composite resin (CR) only (Filtek Supreme, 3M-ESPE), resin modified glass ionomer cement in combination with CR (Vitremer, 3M-ESPE in pulp chamber and Filtek Supreme in MOD cavity), conventional glass ionomer cement in combination with composite resin (CGI-CR) (Ketac Fil, 3M-ESPE in pulp chamber and Filtek Supreme in MOD cavity). Cuspal strain was measured using strain gauges, and fracture resistance was tested with an occlusal load. Elastic modulus (EM) and Vickers hardness (VH) of the restorative materials were determined at different depths using dynamic microhardness indentation. Curing shrinkage was measured using the strain gauge technique. The restorative protocols were also simulated in finite element analysis (FEA). The shrinkage strain, cuspal strain, EM, VH, and fracture resistance data were statistically analyzed using split-plot analysis of variance and Tukey test (p=0.05). Residual shrinkage stresses were expressed in modified von Mises equivalent stresses. Results Shrinkage strain values (in volume %) were Ketac Fil (0.08±0.01) &lt; Vitremer (0.18±0.01) &lt; Filtek Supreme (0.54±0.03). Cuspal strain was higher and fracture resistance was lower when using CR only compared with the techniques that used glass ionomer. The EM and VH of the materials in the pulp chamber were significantly lower for glass ionomer. The FEA showed that using CR only resulted in higher residual stresses in enamel and root dentin close to the pulp chamber than the combinations with glass ionomers (RMGI-CR and CGI-CR). Conclusions The choice of restorative protocol significantly affected the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated molars. Using glass ionomer to fill the pulp chamber is recommended when endodontically treated molars receive direct composite restorations because it reduces cuspal strain and increases fracture resistance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document