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 Comparison of Microhardness and Compressive Strength of Alkasite and Conventional Restorative Materials

2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 320-326
Author(s):  
Kunho Lee ◽  
Jongsoo Kim ◽  
Jisun Shin ◽  
Miran Han
Keyword(s):  
Compressive Strength ◽  
Vickers Microhardness ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Microhardness Test ◽  
Universal Testing ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Ionomer Cement

The aim of this study was to compare compressive strength and microhardness of recently introduced alkasite restorative materials with glass ionomer cement and flowable composite resin.For each material, 20 samples were prepared respectively for compressive strength and Vickers microhardness test. The compressive strength was measured with universal testing machine at crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. And microhardness was measured using Vickers Micro hardness testing machine under 500 g load and 10 seconds dwelling time at 1 hour, 1 day, 7 days, 14 days, 21 days and 35 days.The compressive strength was highest in composite resin, followed by alkasite, and glass ionomer cement. In microhardness test, composite resin, which had no change throughout experimental periods, showed highest microhardness in 1 hour, 1 day, and 7 days measurement. The glass ionomer cement showed increase in microhardness for 7 days and no difference was found with composite resin after 14 days measurement. For alkasite, maximum microhardness was measured on 14 days, but showed gradual decrease.

scholarly journals Effect of chlorhexidine gluconate on porosity and compressive strength of a glass ionomer cement

2014 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 236-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luana Mafra MARTI ◽  
Elcilaine Rizzato AZEVEDO ◽  
Margareth da MATA ◽  
Elisa Maria Aparecida GIRO ◽  
Angela Cristina Cilense ZUANON
Keyword(s):  
Compressive Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Study Groups ◽  
Dental Practice ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Tukey Test ◽  
Compressive Strength Test ◽  
Ionomer Cement

INTRODUCTION:For presenting wide antibacterial activity, chlorhexidine (CHX) has been extensively used in dentistry and can be easily incorporated into the glass ionomer cement (GIC) and consequently released into the oral cavity.AIM: The aim of this study was porosity and compression strength of a GIC, that was added to different concentrations of CHX.MATERIAL AND METHOD: Specimens were prepared with GIC (Ketac Molar Esaymix) and divided into 4 groups according to the concentration of CHX: control, 0.5% and 1% and 2% (n = 10). For analysis of pores specimens were fractured with the aid of hammer and chisel surgical, so that the fracture was performed in the center of the specimens, dividing it in half and images were obtained from a scanning electron microscope (SEM) analyzed in Image J software. The compressive strength test was conducted in a mechanical testing machine (EMIC - Equipment and Testing Systems Ltd., Joseph of the Pines, PR, Brazil). Statistical analysis was performed by ANOVA, Tukey test. Significance level of 5%.RESULT: No statistically significant changes between the study groups was observed both for the number of pores as well as for the compressive strength.CONCLUSION: The use of GIC associated with CHX gluconate 1% and 2% is the best option to be used in dental practice.

scholarly journals The Effect of Various Milling Time Duration On The Characteristic of Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC) with The Addition of Liquid Pmve-Ma

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 45
Author(s):  
Djony Izak Rudyardjo ◽  
Jan Ady ◽  
Aditya Budi Fauzi
Keyword(s):  
Compressive Strength ◽  
Milling Time ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Hardness Test ◽  
Strength Test ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Time Duration ◽  
Dental Cement ◽  
Compressive Strength Test ◽  
Ionomer Cement

A study entitled The Effect of Milling Time Duration on the Characteristics of Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC) Dental Cement with the Addition of Liquid PMVE-MA aims to determine the effect of milling time duration on the physical and mechanical properties of Glass Ionomer Cement, and to determine the optimum milling time duration in order to obtain GIC dental cement with the best characteristic to be applied as a dental restoration material. The duration of the milling time was 80 minutes, 90 minutes, 100 minutes, and 110 minutes. After the milling process, the next process was sintered at a temperature of 1200 for 1 hour to form Powder Glass Ionomer. Then Powder Glass Ionomer was added with Poly Methyl Vinyl Ether-Maleic Acid (PMVE-MA) to form a paste. The mixed paste was then formed. Sample characterization was the density test, the compressive strength test, and the vickers hardness test. The results of the density test obtained the highest value of 1.683 gram / cm3, the compressive strength test of 71.841 MPa, and the highest value of the hardness test of 92.3 Kg / mm2. These results increased as the increasing milling time duration up to 110 minutes.

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.

scholarly journals Effect of cement types on the tensile strength of metallic crowns submitted to thermocycling

2003 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 193-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simonides Consani ◽  
Julie Guzela dos Santos ◽  
Lourenço Correr Sobrinho ◽  
Mário Alexandre Coelho Sinhoreti ◽  
Manoel Damião Sousa-Neto
Keyword(s):  
Tensile Strength ◽  
Zinc Phosphate ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Tensile Load ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Ionomer Cement

The relationship between metallic cast crowns and tensile strength according to cement types submitted to thermocycling was studied. Seventy-two metallic crowns were cast with Verabond II Ni-Cr alloy and cemented in standardized preparations with 10º tapering. Three types of finishing line (45-degree chamfered, 20-degree bevel shoulder and right shoulder) were made with diamond burs on bovine teeth. Twenty-four metallic crowns in each group were randomly subdivided into three subgroups of 8 samples each according to the cement used: SS White zinc phosphate cement, Vitremer resin-modified glass ionomer cement, and Rely X resin cement and were submitted to thermocycling. Retention was evaluated according to tensile load required to displace the metallic cast crowns from tooth preparations with an Instron testing machine. ANOVA and Tukey's test showed a statistically significant difference among luting materials, with greater results for Rely X resin cement (24.9 kgf) followed by SS White zinc phosphate cement (13.3 kgf) and Vitremer resin-modified glass ionomer cement (10.1 kgf). The finishing line types did not influence the tensile resistance of the crowns fixed with the three cements. Increased tensile resistance of metallic crowns fixed on bovine teeth was obtained with resin cement, independent of the finishing line types.

Retentive Strength of Luting Cements for Stainless Steel Crowns: An in vitro Study

2010 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 309-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Priya Subramaniam ◽  
Sapna Kondae ◽  
Kamal Kishore Gupta
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Adhesive Resin ◽  
Luting Cements ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Ionomer Cement

The present study evaluated and compared the retentive strength of three luting cements. A total of forty five freshly extracted human primary molars were used in this study. The teeth were prepared to receive stainless steel crowns. They were then randomly divided into three groups, of fifteen teeth each, so as to receive the three different luting cements: conventional glass ionomer, resin modified glass ionomer and adhesive resin. The teeth were then stored in artificial saliva for twenty four hours. The retentive strength of the crowns was determined by using a specially designed Instron Universal Testing Machine (Model 1011). The data was statistically analyzed using ANOVA to evaluate retentive strength for each cement and Tukey test for pair wise comparison. It was concluded that retentive strength of adhesive resin cement and resin modified glass ionomer cement was significantly higher than that of the conventional glass ionomer cement.

scholarly journals Compressive Strength of a Glass Ionomer Cement Under the Influence of Varnish Protection and Dietary Fluids

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 61-69
Author(s):  
L.O.L. Bohner DDS, MSc, Ph ◽  
L.H.M. Prates
Keyword(s):  
Compressive Strength ◽  
Orange Juice ◽  
Soft Drink ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Distilled Water ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Immersion Period ◽  
Compressive Strength Test ◽  
Student’S T ◽  
Ionomer Cement

The objective of this study was to evaluate the compressive strength of a glass ionomer cement (GIC) under the influence of varnish protection and dietary fluids. Eighty cylindrical test specimens were made from GIC and distributed into four groups (G1, G2, G3, G4) according to the dietary fluid. Each group was further divided into subgroups A and B according to the presence or absence of varnish protection. The eight subgroup samples were stored in distilled water for 30 days and received the following treatments for 14 days: G2A: varnish protection and immersion in soft drink, G2B: no varnish protection and immersion in soft drink, G3A: varnish protection and immersion in orange juice, G3B: no varnish protection and immersion in orange juice, G4A: varnish protection and immersion in yogurt, G4B: no varnish protection and immersion in yogurt. The immersion procedure was performed three times a day, for 15 minutes at a time, for a total of 14 days. The samples from subgroups G1A (with varnish) and G1B (without varnish) were used as controls and stored in distilled water only for 30 days. The samples were submitted to a compressive strength test after the immersion period. The results were analyzed using the ANOVA 2, Tukey test (5%) and Student’s t-test (5%). There were no significant differences between the subgroups, except for the subgroup with varnish protection and immersion in orange juice, which showed reduced GIC compressive strength.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document