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.

scholarly journals The Influence of Mixing Methods on the Compressive Strength and Fluoride Release of Conventional and Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cements

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gilliard Lima Oliveira ◽  
Ceci Nunes Carvalho ◽  
Edilausson Moreno Carvalho ◽  
José Bauer ◽  
Adriana Mara Araújo Leal
Keyword(s):  
Compressive Strength ◽  
Statistical Difference ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Fluoride Ion ◽  
Fluoride Release ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Ion Release ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
One Way Anova

Objective. To evaluate the compressive strength and fluoride ion release of conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cement mixing methods (hand mix and mechanical mix) compared to ready-to-use ones. Materials and Methods. Two conventional glass ionomer cements (GICs) (Fuji II and Fuji II Caps), two resin-modified GICs (Fuji II LC and Fuji II L Caps), and one ready-to-use GIC (Ionoseal, Voco) were used. For the compressive strength test, cylindrical specimens (6 mm × 4 mm) of each group were prepared. The test was performed in a universal testing machine (EMIC DL2000). For the fluoride release test, specimens were prepared in the form of discs and placed in deionized/distilled water, which were replaced daily for 15 days. The fluoride ion release readings were performed on an electrode (Orion 96-09) connected to a digital ion analyzer (Quimis 0400ISE). The compressive strength data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA, and the ion release data were submitted to repeated measures ANOVA (material vs. time) and Holm–Sidak post test (α = 5%). Results. The one-way ANOVA showed statistical difference between the tested materials (p<0.001). Ionoseal showed the highest values of compressive strength (p<0.001). Mechanical manipulation increased the compressive strength only for conventional GIC, and resin-modified GIC did not present any statistical difference. Conventional GIC (mechanical mix) showed higher fluoride release on first day than the other groups tested. Conclusion. There was influence of the mixing methods of the materials on the compressive strength and fluoride release pattern of the glass ionomer cements.

scholarly journals Bond strength of a composite resin to glass ionomer cements using different adhesive systems

2017 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 214-219
Author(s):  
Ana Carolina de Oliveira BECCI ◽  
Mônica de Souza BENETTI ◽  
Natália Bertolo DOMINGUES ◽  
Elisa Maria Aparecida GIRO
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Introduction Glass ionomer cements are often used as a base or cavity lining prior to restorative material. Objective To evaluate the bond strength of a composite resin to different glass ionomer cements, when using a two-step conventional and self-etching adhesive systems. Material and method Three glass ionomer cements (Ketac Molar Easymix, Vitremer and Vitrebond), the composite resin Filtek Z350 XT and the adhesive systems Adper Single Bond 2, Clearfil SE Bond and Adper Easy One were used. As negative control, resin was bonded to cement without using an adhesive system. Holes (4 mm diameter, 2 mm deep) prepared in acrilic bloks were filled with the glass ionomer cements (n=12/group). On the surface, an area of 1mm in diameter was delimited, the adhesive system was applied, and a specimen of composite resin with 1 mm height was made. After 24 hours storage (37 °C and 100% humidity), the microshear test was performed. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey test for comparison between groups (α=0.05). Result The adhesive systems significantly improved the bond strenght of composite resin to glass ionomer cements (p≤0.001). There was no significant difference in bond strength when self-etching adhesive systems were compared with the simplified etch-and-rinse adhesive, except for Vitrebond where Clearfil SE Bond determined higher bond strength when compared to Adper Single Bond 2 (p=0.003). Conclusion Self-etching adhesive systems are a good option for establishing the bond between the composite resin and the glass ionomer cement.

Surface Hardness Properties of Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cements and Polyacid-Modified Composite Resins

2004 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 42-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yusuf Ziya Bayindir ◽  
Mehmet Yildiz
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Water Storage ◽  
Surface Hardness ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Bottom Surface ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Hardness Values ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Abstract In this study the top and bottom surface hardness of two polyacid-modified composite resins (PMCRs), one resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC), and one composite resin were evaluated. The affect of water storage on their hardness was also investigated. The study was conducted using four different groups, each having five specimens obtained from fiberglass die molds with a diameter of 5 mm and a height of 2 mm. Measurements were made on the top and bottom surface of each specimen and recorded after 24 hours and again at 60 days. All tested materials showed different hardness values, and the values of top surfaces of the specimens were found to be higher than the bottom surface in all test groups. There was no statistical difference in the Vickers hardness (HV) values when the test specimens were kept in water storage. In conclusion Hytac displayed microhardness values higher than Vitremer and Dyract. We found the order of HV values to be Surfil > Hytac > Dyract > Vitremer, respectively. Vitremer presented the lowest microhardness level and Surfil the highest. Citation Bayindir YZ, Yildiz M. Surface Hardness Properties of Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cements and Polyacid-Modified Composite Resins. J Contemp Dent Pract 2004 November;(5)4:042-049.

Effects of extraction media upon fluoride release from a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement

1998 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 143-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Geurtsen ◽  
P. Bubeck ◽  
G. Leyhausen ◽  
F. Garcia-Godoy
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Fluoride Release ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Ionomer Cement

scholarly journals Compressive strength of glass ionomer cements using different specimen dimensions

2007 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 204-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
André Mallmann ◽  
Jane Clei Oliveira Ataíde ◽  
Rosa Amoedo ◽  
Paulo Vicente Rocha ◽  
Letícia Borges Jacques
Keyword(s):  
Compressive Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Strength Test ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Universal Testing ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Compressive Strength Test ◽  
Ionomer Cement

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the compressive strength of two glass ionomer cements, a conventional one (Vitro Fil® - DFL) and a resin-modified material (Vitro Fil LC® - DFL), using two test specimen dimensions: One with 6 mm in height and 4 mm in diameter and the other with 12 mm in height and 6 mm in diameter, according to the ISO 7489:1986 specification and the ANSI/ADA Specification No. 66 for Dental Glass Ionomer Cement, respectively. Ten specimens were fabricated with each material and for each size, in a total of 40 specimens. They were stored in distilled water for 24 hours and then subjected to a compressive strength test in a universal testing machine (EMIC), at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The data were statistically analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test (5%). Mean compressive strength values (MPa) were: 54.00 ± 6.6 and 105.10 ± 17.3 for the 12 mm x 6 mm sample using Vitro Fil and Vitro Fil LC, respectively, and 46.00 ± 3.8 and 91.10 ± 8.2 for the 6 mm x 4 mm sample using Vitro Fil and Vitro Fil LC, respectively. The resin-modified glass ionomer cement obtained the best results, irrespective of specimen dimensions. For both glass ionomer materials, the 12 mm x 6 mm matrix led to higher compressive strength results than the 6 mm x 4 mm matrix. A higher variability in results was observed when the glass ionomer cements were used in the larger matrices.

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 In vitro fluoride release from a different kind of conventional and resin modified glass-ionomer cements

2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 197 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mediha Selimović-Dragaš ◽  
Lajla Hasić-Branković ◽  
Fehim Korać ◽  
Nermin Đapo ◽  
Amina Huseinbegović ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fluoride Release ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer

scholarly journals Effect of Hydroxyapatite on Surface Roughness of Zirconomer, and Conventional and Resin-Modified Glass Ionomers

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Farahnaz Sharafeddin ◽  
Somaye Bahrani
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Study Groups ◽  
Distilled Water ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Dental Restorative ◽  
One Way Anova ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Objectives: Glass ionomer cements (GICs) are among the most popular dental restorative materials, but their use is limited due to their clinical disadvantages. Many efforts have been made to improve the properties of these materials by adding various fillers. Incorporation of hydroxyapatite (HA) into the GICs is considered to improve the physical properties of restorations, and may prevent treatment failure. This study aimed to evaluate the surface roughness (Ra) of a conventional glass ionomer cement (CGIC), a resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) and a Zirconomer with and without micro-hydroxyapatite (µHA). Materials and Methods: This experimental study was conducted on 6 groups (n=10) including CGIC, CGIC + µHA, RMGI, RMGI + µHA, Zirconomer, and Zirconomer + µHA. A total of 60 disc-shaped samples (6 mm × 2 mm) were prepared in plastic molds and were stored in distilled water for 24 h. After polishing of the specimens, their Ra was measured by a profilometer in micrometers (µm). The data were analyzed using two and one-way ANOVA, Tukey's HSD test, and independent t-test. Results: Incorporation of µHA resulted in statistically significant differences in Ra between the study groups (P<0.05). Following the incorporation of µHA, the Ra significantly decreased in CGIC (P=0.013) and Zirconomer (P=0.003). However, addition of µHA to RMGI resulted in a significant increase in its Ra (P<0.001). Conclusion: Addition of µHA decreased the Ra of Zirconomer and CGIC, and increased the surface roughness of RMGI samples.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document