Adhesiveness of Various Glass Ionomer Cements in Cavities Treated with Carisolv

2012 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y Yamada ◽  
Y Masuda ◽  
Y Kimura ◽  
M Hossain ◽  
A Manabe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Permanent Teeth ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Group 4 ◽  
Caries Treatment ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Acceptable Method ◽  
Caries Removal ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the adhesion of glass ionomer cements to dentin and the effect of pretreatment using Carisolv. Study design: Forty extracted permanent teeth with caries were used for this study. All lesions were removed using the Carisolv system and teeth were divided into eight groups. Groups 1 to 4 were filled with three types of conventional glass ionomer cements and a resin modified glass ionomer cement. Group 8 was restored with composite resin. In the remaining three groups (Groups 5 to 7), several pretreatment procedures, including EDTA and dentin primer application and a combination of these, were performed before restoring with resin modified glass ionomer cement. All restorations were thermocycled, and microleakage tests were performed on all teeth. Results: There were no statistical differences among Groups 1, 2 and 3 or between Groups 4 and 8. However, Groups 1 to 3 had higher microleakage levels than Groups 4 and 8. Groups 5 to 7 showed similar leakage levels as Group 4. Conclusion: Pretreatment with EDTA or dentin primer did not improve bonding ability. Combination of caries removal using Carisolv and a resin modified glass ionomer cement restoration without pretreatment seems to be an acceptable method for caries treatment.

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 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 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.

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 Efek Antibiofilm Glass Ionomer Cements dan Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cements Terhadap Lactobacillus acidophilus

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 120
Author(s):  
Elsandra Novita Halim ◽  
Karlina Samadi ◽  
Sri Kunarti
Keyword(s):  
Lactobacillus Acidophilus ◽  
Biofilm Formation ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Clinical Success ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Luting Cement ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Background: Risk factors for developing secondary caries are similar to those resulting in primary caries. The marginal seal of a restoration is one of the important factors predicting clinical success. The antibiofilm effect of materials used for the luting cement of oral function affects oral health. Antibiofilm properties of dental luting materials such as Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC) and Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement (RMGIC) may improve the restorative treatment outcome. Purpose: This experiment evaluates the antibiofilm effect of GIC and RMGIC on Lactobacillus acidophilus in vitro. Method: Lactobacillus acidophilus served as test microorganism. The quantitative microtiter plate biofilm assays were used to evaluate the antibiofilm effect of the dental luting materials on early-stage biofilm using a direct contact test (DCT) then continued by reading of Optical Density (OD) of biofilm using ELISA reader at a wavelength of 570nm. Result: GIC and RMGIC showed a decrease of OD value from negative control in all groups. The materials’ elute had effect on both bacterial growth with GIC higher then RMGIC to inhibit Lactobacillus acidophilus biofilm formation. Conclusion: The antibiofilm effect of GIC more effective than RMGIC to inhibit Lactobacillus acidophilus biofilm formation. 

scholarly journals In Vitro Bonding Performance of Modern Self-Adhesive Resin Cements and Conventional Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cements to Prosthetic Substrates

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (22) ◽  
pp. 8157
Author(s):  
Encarna Piquer Maño ◽  
Rafael Marco Algarra ◽  
Amr Fawzy ◽  
Vicente C. B. Leitune ◽  
Fabrício M. Collares ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Cements ◽  
Adhesive Resin ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Modern Self ◽  
Ionomer Cement

This study aimed at evaluating the shear bond strength (SBS) of modern self-adhesive resin cements and resin-modified glass ionomer cements applied to different prosthetic substrates. Zirconia, lithium-disilicate glass-ceramic and a noble metal alloy were used as bonding substrates. They were all sand-blasted with alumina, while LD was further etched with 9.6% hydrofluoric acid (10 s). A light-curing resin-modified glass ionomer cement (3M-GIC: Ketac Cem Plus) and a self-curing resin-modified glass ionomer cement (GC-GIC: FujiCEM 2) were compared to self-adhesive resin cements (PAN: Panavia SA Universal) and (3M-RES: Rely X Unicem 2). Ten specimens for each substrate were produced and up to five cylinders of each cement were bonded to each substrate. The shear bond strength (SBS) was evaluated after 24 h or after thermocycling (TC) aging (5000 cycles). The data was statistically analysed by two-way ANOVA and Student–Newman–Keuls test (α = 0.05). Failure modes were analysed through stereoscopic microscopy. The greatest SBS was attained with PAN, whilst 3M-GIC showed the lowest SBS and failed prevalently in adhesive mode. No difference in SBS was observed between GC-GIC and 3M-RES. After TC aging, all cements showed significant drop (p < 0.05) in SBS, but PAN showed the greatest SBS. Reliable bond strength to prosthetic substrates can be achieved with specific universal resin-luting cements and may be an alternative to glass ionomer cements when luting alloy substrates.

scholarly journals The Glass Ionomer Cement Reinforced with Silver - Premise in Choosing the Teeth Proposed for Orthodontic Purpose Extraction

2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
pp. 324-326
Author(s):  
Kamel Earar ◽  
Anca Porumb ◽  
Ruxandra Matei ◽  
Simona Cavalu ◽  
Ramona Amina Popovici ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Permanent Teeth ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Physical Chemical ◽  
Bio Compatibility ◽  
Posterior Area ◽  
Ionomer Cement ◽  
Lateral Area

The glass ionomer cements present very good bio compatibility especially due to the presence of Fluor in their composition. The reactivity from the dental pulp to the ionomer cements is also favorable, even in the case of the profound cavities. The metallic ionomer cements are obturation materials that tend to replace the amalgams and were created by adding of metallic alloys to the glass powder for the purpose of improving the mechanic properties. The resistance to abrasion of the glass ionomer cements reinforced with Ag is increased compared to the ionomer cements, being close to that of the composite resins with micro filling, but inferior to the amalgams or composites for the posterior area. All these properties of the metallic glass ionomers recommend their utilization in accomplishing the definitive obturations of the permanent teeth from the lateral area, where the physiognomic aspect is not on the first place and where it is necessary a material with fast grip. The physical-chemical qualities and the bio compatibility of the glass ionomers reinforced with particles of silver was our premise in their utilization for the obturation of the molars of six years in children.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document