scholarly journals Compressive strength of resin-modified glass ionomer restorative material: effect of P/L ratio and storage time

2005 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 356-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mônica Aratani ◽  
Antônio Carlos Pereira ◽  
Lourenço Correr-Sobrinho ◽  
Mário Alexandre Coelho Sinhoreti ◽  
Simonides Consani
Keyword(s):  
Compressive Strength ◽  
Storage Time ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Strength Testing ◽  
Restorative Material ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Failure Data ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
And Storage ◽  
Ionomer Cement

The aim of this study was to evaluate the compressive strength of resin-modified glass ionomer cement Fuji II LC and Vitremer, in powder/liquid ratios of 1:1, 1:2 and 1:3, at three periods (24 hours, 7 and 28 days) of storage in distilled water at 37ºC. For each material, P/L ratio and storage time, 5 cylindrical specimens were prepared, with 4mm diameter and 6mm height, in silicon moulds. Specimens were light-cured for 40 seconds at each extremity, removed from the moulds and laterally light-cured (perpendicular to long axis) for 40 seconds, protected as recommended by the manufacturers and immersed for the time tested. The specimens were submitted to compressive strength testing in an Instron machine at a crosshead speed of 1.0mm/min until failure. Data were submitted to ANOVA and Tukey's test (5%), and showed that the compressive strength of resin-modified glass ionomer cement was reduced when P/L ratio was reduced and that the storage in water had little influence on compressive strength.

scholarly journals Influence of photocuring and storage time on the volumetric change of resin modified glass ionomer cements

2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (5) ◽  
pp. 438
Author(s):  
Ian Vieira ◽  
Maria Atta
Keyword(s):  
Storage Time ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Volumetric Change ◽  
Volumetric Expansion ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
And Storage ◽  
Ionomer Cement ◽  
Made In

AIM: This study evaluated the effect of photoativation and storage on the hygroscopic expansion of resin modified glass ionomers (Vitremer-3M/ESPE, Fuji II LC-GC Int., Vitro Fil LC-DFL). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The RMGIC were manipulated according to the manufacturer’s instructions, inserted into a mold and kept in a darkness box for 15 minutes. Then, the samples were distributed into four groups (n=5): light-cured for 20s, light-cured for 40s, light-cured for 60s and not light-cured (control group).  Each sample was storage in distilled water at 37ºC. The measurements of volumetric changes were made in three different times of storage: 24 hours, 7 days and 30 days. Volumetric changes were determined using Archimedes principle. Means and standard deviations  values were analyzed by three-way analysis of variance and  Tukey’s test to compare significance between the groups (α=0,05). RESULTS: All materials underwent volumetric expansion after 30 days. Vitremer showed the less expansion when no light-cured. The time of light-cure did not influence the volumetric change, except for Fuji II LC, that showed great expansion when activated for 60s. Vitro Fil LC showed some degree of shrinkage after 7 days. CONCLUSION: This study concluded that photocuring can influence the volumetric change of resin modified glass 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.

Comparative evaluation of compressive strength of esthetic restorative materials

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 24
Author(s):  
Dr. Sazan Sherdil Saleem
Keyword(s):  
Compressive Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Group Iii ◽  
Group I ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Ionomer Cement

The present study was aimed to evaluate and compare the compressive strength ofconventional glass ionomer cement with resin modified glass ionomer, compomer andmicrohybrid composite. A total of 40 specimens of esthetic restorative materials werefabricated using customized cylindrical teflon mould measuring 6mm height and 4mmdiameter and were grouped with ten specimens in each group, Group I: Conventionalglass ionomer cement (Fuji II). Group II: Resin modified glass ionomer (Fuji II LC).Group III: Compomer (Dyract AP) and Group IV: Microhybrid composite resin(Tetric Ceram).They were covered with Mylar strip and were cured using LED lightcuring unit. Compressive strength was evaluated using Universal testing machine. Theresult showed that there were a significant difference among the groups in whichTetric Ceram showed highest compressive strength and Fuji II showed the leastcompressive strength

scholarly journals Effect Fresh Milk on Surface Roughness of Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-14
Author(s):  
Astrid Yudhit ◽  
Kholidina Imanda Harahap ◽  
Yuli Ratna Dewi
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Primary Teeth ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Restorative Material ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Fresh Milk ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Before And After ◽  
One Way Anova ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Resin modified glass ionomer cement as restorative material used in dentistry especially in primary teeth. Fresh milk is often consumed by children as daily drink and it contains lactic acid. The aim of this study was to evaluate surface roughness of resin modified glass ionomer cement after immersed in fresh milk for 2, 4, and 6 hours. Samples were disc shape resin modified glass ionomer cement with size 5 mm in diameter and 2 mm in thickness. Totally 24 samples were divided into 3 groups (n=8), group immersed for 2 hours, group immersed for 4 hours, and group immersed for 6 hours. Fresh milk was pure cow’s milk that harvest in the morning by the farmer. Surface roughness measurements was done before and after immersed using a profilometer (Surfcorder SE-300, Laboratory Ltd, Japan). Results showed surface roughness change were 0.0217 ± 0.005 μm for groups A, 0.0366 ± 0.006 μm for groups B, and 0.0555 ± 0.004μm for groups of 6 hours. One Way Anova test showed significant differences between groups (p <0.05). It can be concluded that there was significant increased on surface roughness of modified resin ionomer cement after immersed in fresh milk for 2, 4 and 6 hours.    

scholarly journals RESIN MODIFIED GLASS IONOMER CEMENT SEBAGAI MATERIAL ALTERNATIF RESTORASI UNTUK GIGI SULUNG

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 46
Author(s):  
Diana Setya Ningsih
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Properties ◽  
Primary Teeth ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Moisture Resistance ◽  
Restorative Material ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
The World ◽  
Paper Review ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Glass ionomer cement (GIC) is a material that can release fluoride to prevent caries especially in primary teeth. One of the developments of glass ionomer cement in the world of pediatry dentistry is resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC). The resin-modified glass ionomer cement were still maintaining the clinical advantages oforiginal material, such as fluoride realease, good compatibility and aestehetically. The mechanical properties of rmgic is more higher than gic. These materials have a better adhesion, higher moisture resistance, and a longer shelft life. This paper review aims to know the ability RMGIC as alternative restorative material for primary teeth.

scholarly journals Evaluating the Failure of Resin-based Materials on the Proximal Cervical Dentin

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 631-640
Author(s):  
Sukamon Kochotwuttinont ◽  
Kornchanok Wayakanon
Keyword(s):  
Resin Composite ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
High Viscosity ◽  
The Other ◽  
Restorative Material ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Hybrid Layer ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Gap Width ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Background: Resin-based materials are the popular restorative material in dentistry. The majority of these materials are light cured with a major disadvantage: marginal leakage. Objective: To evaluate the gap width of different resin-based materials at the cervical dentin when achieved mechanical force. Methods: Class II cavities were prepared on extracted premolar teeth with the gingival margin 1 mm below the Cementoenamel Junction (CEJ). In the first three experimental groups, three different lining materials (flowable resin composite, bulk-fill flowable resin composite, and resin-modified glass ionomer cement) were placed at the cervical dentin with a thickness of 1 mm. The rest of the cavities were restored with conventional resin composite. The other two groups were restored with conventional resin composite (control) or high viscosity bulk-fill resin composite, respectively. All groups were thermocycled and underwent vacuum pressure 2.6 KPa for 30 min in a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM). Results: There was no gap formation at the cervical dentin on the external surface when restored with high-viscosity bulk fill resin composite. Almost all gaps occurred at the interface between restorative materials and the hybrid layer. The flowable bulk fill resin composite showed a significantly smaller gap width on both the external and internal surfaces compared to the other groups (p< 0.05). The resin-modified glass ionomer cement showed the largest gaps in the cervical dentin (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The different types of resin-based materials demonstrated a different failure of gap width under mechanical force. It clearly occurred at the restorative material-hybrid layer interface.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document