scholarly journals Microleakage in bonded amalgam restorations using different adhesive materials

2004 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maximiliano Sérgio Cenci ◽  
Evandro Piva ◽  
Fernando Potrich ◽  
Elenita Formolo ◽  
Flávio Fernando Demarco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Blue Dye ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Cements ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Amalgam Restorations ◽  
Ionomer Cement ◽  
Adhesive Materials

The aim of this study was to verify the ability of different adhesive materials to prevent microleakage in bonded amalgam restorations. Standard cavities were prepared in both buccal and lingual surfaces of 35 bovine incisors. The gingival wall was located in cementum/dentin and the occlusal wall in enamel. Teeth (n=35) were divided into 5 groups, according to material employed (one glass-ionomer cement, two resin cements, one adhesive system, and Copalex varnish as a control). Following restoration, the teeth were submitted to thermal cycling. The teeth were subsequently immersed in methylene blue dye and sectioned to allow assessment of microleakage. Non-parametric statistical analysis indicated that all materials demonstrated less leakage than the control group (p<0.01). No leakage was found using the resin-modified glass-ionomer cement, which was significantly different from the other adhesive materials (p<0.05). Leakage in enamel was lower than in cementum/dentin margins. It was concluded that bonded amalgam was an effective technique, since all materials prevented microleakage in enamel and cementum/dentin, when compared to the control group, except Panavia in cementum/dentin margins.

scholarly journals Shear Bond Strength of Two Adhesive Materials to Eroded Enamel

2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 700-703 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniela Hesse ◽  
Tathiane Lenzi ◽  
Camila Guglielmi ◽  
Ketlin Anacleto ◽  
Daniela Prócida Raggio
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Ionomer Cement ◽  
Adhesive Materials

ABSTRACT Aim To evaluate the bond strength of one etch-and-rinse adhesive system and one resin-modified glass ionomer cement to sound and eroded enamel. Materials and methods Forty-eight bovine incisors were embedded in acrylic resin and ground to obtain flat buccal enamel surfaces. Half of the specimens were submitted to erosion challenge with pH-cycling model (3x/cola drink for 7 days) to induce eroded enamel. After that, all specimens were randomly assigned according to adhesive material: etch-andrinse adhesive system (Adper Single Bond 2 – 3M ESPE, USA) or resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Vitro Fil LC – DFL, Brazil). The shear bond testing was performed after 24 hours water storage (0.5 mm/min). Shear bond strength means were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc tests (p < 0.05). Results Adper Single Bond 2 showed the highest bond strength value to eroded enamel (p < 0.05), whereas no difference was observed in sound enamel compared with Vitro Fil LC (p > 0.05). Conclusion Bond strength of etch-and-rinse adhesive system increases in eroded enamel, while no difference is verified to resin-modified glass ionomer cement. Clinical significance Adhesive materials may be used in eroded enamel without jeopardizing the bonding quality; however it is preferable to use etch-and-rinse adhesive system. How to cite this article Lenzi T, Hesse D, Guglielmi C, Anacleto K, Raggio DP. Shear Bond Strength of Two Adhesive Materials to Eroded Enamel. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013;14(4):700-703.

scholarly journals The effect of the addition of propolis to resin-modified glass ionomer cement bracket adhesive materials on the growth inhibition zone of Streptococcus mutans

F1000Research ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 2105
Author(s):  
Stefani Kristanti Saputra ◽  
Darmawan Sutantyo ◽  
Cendrawasih Andusyana Farmasyanti ◽  
Ananto Ali Alhasyimi
Keyword(s):  
Growth Inhibition ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Inhibition Zone ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Adhesive Material ◽  
Growth Inhibition Zone ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Ionomer Cement ◽  
Adhesive Materials

Background: Orthodontic treatments progress alongside the development of adhesive materials. The present study aimed to determine the antibacterial properties of propolis, a natural product, in a mixture of resin-modified glass ionomer cement by observing the growth inhibition zone of Streptococcus mutans. Methods: This was an in vitro study conducted on 45 samples of adhesive material, which were divided into control group (resin-modified glass ionomer cement bracket adhesive material), two groups of propolis concentrations (15%, and 25%) and duration (0, 15, and 30 days). The antibacterial effect of each sample was evaluated against S. mutans using an agar plate diffusion test. Measurement of the diameter of the growth inhibition zone of S. mutans was carried out. The data obtained were analyzed statisticallyThe significance value of the Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney test was set at p <0.05, while the significance value of the normality and homogeneity test was set at p> 0.05). Datas in this study that were not normally distributed (p = 0.012) but homogeneous (p = 0.110) were analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis test (p = 0.003) and then the Mann-Whitney test was performed to determine differences in significance between groups. Results: There was a relationship between concentration and duration of propolis to the growth inhibition zone of S. mutans (p=0.003). The addition of 25% propolis concentration inhibited the growth of S. mutans more than the addition of 15% and without propolis (control group). The addition of propolis to resin-modified glass ionomer cement for 15 days was more effective in inhibiting the growth of S. mutans. Conclusion: The addition of propolis to adhesive materials provides an inhibitory effect on the growth of S. mutans, which may be effective in the world of preventive dentistry.

scholarly journals In Vitro Shear Bond Strength of Three Self-adhesive Resin Cements and a Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement to Various Prosthodontic Substrates

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camila Sabatini ◽  
Manthan Patel ◽  
Eric D'Silva
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Cements ◽  
Adhesive Resin ◽  
Setting Reaction ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Bond Strengths ◽  
Ionomer Cement

SUMMARY Objective To evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of three self-adhesive resin cements and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) to different prosthodontic substrates. Materials and Methods The substrates base metal, noble metal, zirconia, ceramic, and resin composite were used for bonding with different cements (n=12). Specimens were placed in a bonding jig, which was filled with one of four cements (RelyX Unicem, Multilink Automix, Maxcem Elite, and FujiCEM Automix). Both light-polymerizing (LP) and self-polymerizing (SP) setting reactions were tested. Shear bond strength was measured at 15 minutes and 24 hours in a testing device at a test speed of 1 mm/min and expressed in MPa. A Student t-test and a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to evaluate differences between setting reactions, between testing times, and among cements irrespective of other factors. Generalized linear regression model and Tukey tests were used for multifactorial analysis. Results Significantly higher mean SBS were demonstrated for LP mode relative to SP mode (p&lt;0.001) and for 24 hours relative to 15 minutes (p&lt;0.001). Multifactorial analysis revealed that all factors (cement, substrate, and setting reaction) and all their interactions had a significant effect on the bond strength (p&lt;0.001). Resin showed significantly higher SBS than other substrates when bonded to RelyX Unicem and Multilink Automix in LP mode (p&lt;0.05). Overall, FujiCEM demonstrated significantly lower SBS than the three self-adhesive resin cements (p&lt;0.05). Conclusions Overall, higher bond strengths were demonstrated for LP relative to SP mode, 24 hours relative to 15 minutes and self-adhesive resin cements compared to the RMGICs. Bond strengths also varied depending on the substrate, indicating that selection of luting cement should be partially dictated by the substrate and the setting reaction.

scholarly journals Microleakage after Thermocycling of Three Self-Etch Adhesives under Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Cement Restorations

2010 ◽  
Vol 2010 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabine O. Geerts ◽  
Laurence Seidel ◽  
Adelin I. Albert ◽  
Audrey M. Gueders
Keyword(s):  
Polyacrylic Acid ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Class V ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
One Step ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Ionomer Cement

This study was designed to evaluate microleakage that appeared on Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Cement (RMGIC) restorations. Sixty class V cavities () were cut on thirty extracted third molars, which were randomly allocated to three experimental groups. All the buccal cavities were pretreated with polyacrylic acid, whereas the lingual cavities were treated with three one-step Self-Etch adhesives, respectively, Xeno III (Dentsply Detrey GmbH, Konstanz, Germany), iBond exp (Heraeus Kulzer gmbH & Co. KG, Hanau, Germany), and Adper Prompt-L-Pop (3M ESPE AG, Dental products Seefeld, Germany). All cavities were completely filled with RMGIC, teeth were thermocycled for 800 cycles, and leakage was evaluated. Results were expressed as means standard deviations (SDs). Microleakage scores were analysed by means of generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) assuming an ordinal logistic link function. All results were considered to be significant at the 5% critical level (). The results showed that bonding RMGIC to dentin with a Self-Etch adhesive rather than using polyacrylic acid did not influence microleakage scores (), except for one tested Self-Etch adhesive, namely, Xeno III (). Nevertheless, our results did not show any significant difference between the three tested Self-Etch adhesive systems. In conclusion, the pretreatment of dentin with Self-Etch adhesive system, before RMGIC filling, seems to be an alternative to the conventional Dentin Conditioner for the clinicians as suggested by our results (thermocycling) and others (microtensile tests).

scholarly journals Residual HEMA and TEGDMA Release and Cytotoxicity Evaluation of Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement and Compomers Cured with Different Light Sources

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Murat Selim Botsali ◽  
Adem Kuşgöz ◽  
Subutay Han Altintaş ◽  
Hayriye Esra Ülker ◽  
Mehmet Tanriver ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Performance ◽  
Light Emitting Diode ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Triethylene Glycol ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Light Sources ◽  
Fibroblast Cells ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Ionomer Cement

The purpose of this study was first to evaluate the elution of 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) and triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA) monomers from resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) and compomers cured with halogen and light-emitting diode (LED) light-curing units (LCUs). The effect of cured materials on the viability of L929 fibroblast cells was also evaluated. One RMGIC (Ketac N100) and two compomers (Dyract Extra and Twinkystar) were tested. Materials were prepared in teflon disks and light-cured with LED or halogen LCUs. The residual monomers of resin materials in solution were identified using high-performance liquid chromatography. The fibroblast cells’ viability was analyzed using MTT assay. The type of LCU did not have a significant effect on the elution of HEMA and TEGDMA. A greater amount of HEMA than TEGMDA was eluted. The amount of TEGDMA eluted from Twinkystar was greater than Dyract Extra (P<0.05) when cured with a halogen LCU. All material-LCU combinations decreased the fibroblast cells’ viability more than the control group (P<0.01), except for Dyract Extra cured with a halogen LCU (P>0.05). Curing with the LED LCU decreased the cells’ viability more than curing with the halogen LCU for compomers. For Ketac N100, the halogen LCU decreased the cells’ viability more than the LED LCU.

scholarly journals Radiopacity Evaluation of Contemporary Luting Cements by Digitization of Images

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
José Maurício dos Santos Nunes Reis ◽  
Érica Gouveia Jorge ◽  
João Gustavo Rabelo Ribeiro ◽  
Ligia Antunes Pereira Pinelli ◽  
Filipe de Oliveira Abi-Rached ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Cements ◽  
Iso Standard ◽  
Luting Cements ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
One Way Anova ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Objective. The aim of this study was to evaluate the radiopacity of two conventional cements (Zinc Cement and Ketac Cem Easymix), one resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RelyX Luting 2) and six resin cements (Multilink, Bistite II DC, RelyX ARC, Fill Magic Dual Cement, Enforce and Panavia F) by digitization of images. Methods. Five disc-shaped specimens ( mm) were made for each material, according to ISO 4049. After setting of the cements, radiographs were made using occlusal films and a graduated aluminum stepwedge varying from 1.0 to 16 mm in thickness. The radiographs were digitized, and the radiopacity of the cements was compared with the aluminum stepwedge using the software VIXWIN-2000. Data (mmAl) were submitted to one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (). Results. The Zinc Cement was the most radiopaque material tested (). The resin cements presented higher radiopacity () than the conventional (Ketac Cem Easymix) or resin-modified glass ionomer (RelyX Luting 2) cements, except for the Fill Magic Dual Cement and Enforce. The Multilink presented the highest radiopacity () among the resin cements. Conclusion. The glass ionomer-based cements (Ketac Cem Easymix and RelyX Luting 2) and the resin cements (Fill Magic Dual Cement and Enforce) showed lower radiopacity values than the minimum recommended by the ISO standard.

The Effect of Resin-modified Glass-ionomer Cement Base and Bulk-fill Resin Composite on Cuspal Deformation

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 208-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
KV Nguyen ◽  
RH Wong ◽  
J Palamara ◽  
MF Burrow
Keyword(s):  
Resin Composite ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
High Viscosity ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Base Materials ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Maxillary Premolars ◽  
Materials Used ◽  
Ionomer Cement ◽  
Adhesive Materials

SUMMARY Objectives: This study investigated cuspal deformation in teeth restored with different types of adhesive materials with and without a base. Methods: Mesio-occluso-distal slot cavities of moderately large dimension were prepared on extracted maxillary premolars (n=24). Teeth were assigned to one of four groups and restored with either a sonic-activated bulk-fill resin composite (RC) (SonicFill), or a conventional nanohybrid RC (Herculite Ultra). The base materials used were a flowable nanofilled RC (Premise Flowable) and a high-viscosity resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC) (Riva Light-Cure HV). Cuspal deflection was measured with two direct current differential transformers, each contacting a buccal and palatal cusp. Cuspal movements were recorded during and after restoration placement. Data for the buccal and palatal cusp deflections were combined to give the net cuspal deflection. Results: Data varied widely. All teeth experienced net inward cuspal movement. No statistically significant differences in cuspal deflection were found among the four test groups. Conclusions: The use of a flowable RC or an RMGIC in closed-laminate restorations produced the same degree of cuspal movement as restorations filled with only a conventional nanohybrid or bulk-fill RC.

Two-Year Clinical Evaluation of Three Restorative Materials in Primary Molars

2009 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maha Daou ◽  
Bruno Tavernier ◽  
Jean-Marc Meyer
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Class I ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
High Caries Risk ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Amalgam Restorations ◽  
Ionomer Cement

A variety of alternatives to amalgam are now available for use in Class I and Class II restorations in primary teeth, including glass ionomer cements, compomers and resin modified glass ionomer cements(RMGIC). Objectives: This study evaluated the two-year clinical performance of three restorative dental materials: A resin modified glass ionomer cement (Fuji IILC), a compomer (Dyract AP) and a high viscosity glass ionomer cement (Fuji IX), in primary molars of pediatric patients with high caries risk activity and compared these results to those reported for amalgam restorations. Study design: One hundred and forty nine Class I and Class II cavities in 45 patients aged 6 to 8 years were restored with compomer, glass ionomer cements and amalgam. Restorations were evaluated according to modified Ryge criteria by two examiners at baseline, and after 6, 12, 18 and 24 months of oral function. The data was submitted to statistical analysis (binomial and hyper geometric tests, p&lt;0.05). Results: Two-year recall rate was 62.42%. Class I performed better than class II restorations. The difference in marginal discoloration between compomer and amalgam restorations was statistically significant (p=0.014). No other significant differences were found between GIC, compomer and amalgam restorations. The clinical performance of the three restorative materials compared to amalgam in Class I and Class II cavities at two-year recall was acceptable.Conclusions: The results, even in a population with high caries risk activity, suggest that these materials are suitable alternatives to amalgam in Class I and Class II restorations in primary teeth.

scholarly journals In vitro evaluation of marginal microleakage of class II bonded amalgam restorations using a dentin adhesive and a glass ionomer cement

1999 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edmêr Silvestre PEREIRA JÚNIOR ◽  
Maria Francisca Thereza Borro BIJELLA ◽  
Salete Moura Bonifácio da SILVA ◽  
Bernardo Gonzales VONO
Keyword(s):  
Tap Water ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Distilled Water ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Bonding System ◽  
Amalgam Restorations ◽  
Ionomer Cement

The purpose of this study was to evaluate in vitro the effectiveness of the dentin bonding system All Bond 2 associated with Resinomer (Bisco), and of Vitrebond (3M) glass ionomer cement fresh-mixed, both used in the bonded amalgam technique, to prevent short-term microleakage in class II cavities restored with Dispersalloy (Dentsply), an admixed alloy. The control group utilized the Copalite (Cooley & Cooley) varnish. Forty five sound human extracted premolars were used. Class II cavity preparations were made on the mesial and distal surfaces of non-carious teeth, with the gingival margins wall established 1mm under the cementum enamel junction. The specimens were divided randomly into three groups with thirty cavities in each group. The teeth were stored in distilled water for 24 hours and were thermocyled through 500 cycles in distilled water between 5°C and 55°C with a dwell time of 15 seconds. The apices and roots of the teeth were sealed. They were placed in a 37°C bath of 0.5% basic fuchsin dye for 24 hours. The teeth were washed in tap water for 24 hours and cut. The microleakage scores per restoration were averaged and three values of various test groups were subjected to the Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn test at a significance level of p < 0.05. The All Bond 2/Resinomer showed significantly less microleakage at gingival margins than the Vitrebond and Copalite lined to amalgam restorations. The Vitrebond fresh mixed, lined to amalgam restorations, showed significantly less microleakage than the Copalite lined to amalgam restorations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document