scholarly journals Prevention of postoperative sensitivity in composite restorations

2014 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 84-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lado Davidovic ◽  
Igor Radovic ◽  
Jelena Krunic
Keyword(s):  
Composite Material ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Posterior Teeth ◽  
Dental Tissues ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Hard Dental Tissues ◽  
Postoperative Sensitivity ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Introduction. Despite the development of restorative dentistry bond between materials and hard dental tissues is still not satisfying and often leads to marginal discoloration, microleakage, secondary caries and postoperative sensitivity. The aim of this study was to examine the clinical efficacy of different liners and oxalate-based desensitizer in preventing the occurrence of postoperative sensitivity. Material and Methods. This clinical study included 120 patients in which two homologous contralateral posterior teeth were restored with composite material and different liners. Patients were divided in three groups, depending on applied liner. In each patient, before the application of composite material in one tooth the liner was placed, while in the other tooth both the desensitizer and the same liner were used. The following liners were used: Calcimol LC, ANA Liner, Fuji II LC; desensitizer: BisBlock and composite material: Ceram-X Mono. Results. Teeth restored using Calcimol LC were the most sensitive after treatment whereas teeth restored with Fuji II LC showed the least postoperative sensitivity (Calcimol LC > ANA Liner > Fuji II LC). In the group of teeth restored with BisBlock postoperative sensitivity was observed in 6.7% restorations, while in the group where desensitizer was not used, sensitivity was noted in 15.8% of cases. There was statistically significant difference in the incidence of postoperative sensitivity between the group where desensitizer was used vs. group where it was not used (p<0.05). Conclusion. Glass-ionomer cement is more efficient in preventing postoperative sensitivity compared to compomer and light-curable calcium hydroxide in posterior composite restorations. The use of desensitizer reduced significantly the incidence of postoperative sensitivity.

COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF RESTORATIVE TREATMENTS ON NON-CARIOUS CERVICAL LESIONS OF COMPOSITE AND GLASS IONOMER CEMENT

2020 ◽  
pp. 38-45
Author(s):  
Duong Nguyen Thi Thuy ◽  
Huong Nguyen Thi Kim
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Composite Glass ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Ionomer Cement ◽  
Group 1

Background: Composite and Glass ionomer cement (GIC) are common restorative materials of non carious cervical lesions (NCCLs), which effects are controverisial. The aim of the present study was to compare the result of restorations on NCCLs between Composite and GIC. Materials and Methods: follow-up clinical trial with split-mouth design. Thirty-six patients with 96 NCCLs were divided into 2 groups (n=48/group): Group 1 restored by Composite, Group 2 restored by GIC. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, 1 and 3 months for pulpal sensitivity, restoration morphology and overall success grade. Results: GIC restorations gained 100% Good results for all parameters at 3 time points. Composite showed 87.5%, 93.8% and 97.9% Good results at baseline, 1 and 3 months, sequentially. At 3 weeks recall, 1 Composite restorations (2.1%) showed Moderate results of Retention and 2 Composite restorations (4.2%) changed colour. Conclusions: There was no statistically significant difference seen among the three groups for 3 parameters. Key words: non-carious cervical lesion, Composite, Glass ionomer cement

scholarly journals Comparative Analysis of Postcementation Hypersensitivity with Glass Ionomer Cement and a Resin Cement: An in vivo Study

2012 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 327-331 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deepak Mehta ◽  
Rohit M Shetty ◽  
Sonia Bhat ◽  
G Srivatsa ◽  
Y Bharath Shetty
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Adhesive Resin ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Abutment Teeth ◽  
Adhesive Resin Cement ◽  
Postoperative Sensitivity ◽  
Ionomer Cement

ABSTRACT Aim The aim of this clinical study was to compare the postoperative sensitivity of abutment teeth restored with full coverage restorations retained with either conventional glassionomer cement (GIC) or resin cement. Materials and methods Fifty patients received full-coverage restorations on vital abutment teeth. Of these, 25 were cemented with GIC (GC Luting and Lining cement) and the other 25 using an adhesive resin cement (Smartcem 2). A randomized single blind study was undertaken for acquiring and evaluating the data. The teeth were examined before cementation, after cementation, 24 hours postcementation and 7 days postcementation. A visual analog scale was used to help the patient rate hypersensitivity. Results The statistical analysis of the result was done using students paired t-test. No statistically significant difference between Smartcem 2 and GIC was observed, when tested immediately and 24 hours after cementation. Statistically significant difference was seen between Smartcem 2 and GIC when tested 7 days postcementation with a significance level of 0.05. Higher postoperative sensitivity was seen with GIC when compared to resin cement. Conclusion In this study, the incidence of postoperative hypersensitivity after cementation of full-crown restorations with GIC and resin cement was similar when tested immediately. However, 7 days postcementation, abutments with GIC showed higher response compared to resin cement. Clinical significance A self-adhesive resin cement can be the material of choice for luting if presence of postoperative sensitivity is of prime consideration. In case GIC is being used, patient should be informed about the presence of sensitivity for a more prolonged period than with resin cement. How to cite this article Shetty RM, Bhat S, Mehta D, Srivatsa G, Shetty YB. Comparative Analysis of Postcementation Hypersensitivity with Glass Ionomer Cement and a Resin Cement: An in vivo Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012;13(3): 327-331.

scholarly journals In vitro quantitative evaluation of marginal microleakage in class II restorations confected with a glass ionomer cement and two composite resins

2001 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 277-282 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Fernanda Borro BIJELLA ◽  
Maria Francisca Thereza Borro BIJELLA ◽  
Salete Moura Bonifácio da SILVA
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Deionized Water ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Dye Penetration ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Distal Direction ◽  
Ionomer Cement

This study evaluated, in vitro, marginal microleakage in class II restorations confected with the glass ionomer cement Vitremer and with the composite resins Ariston pHc and P-60. The aims of the study were to assess the effect of thermocycling on those materials and to evaluate two methods utilized in the analysis of dye penetration. Sixty premolars divided in three groups were utilized; the teeth had proximal cavities whose cervical walls were located 1 mm below the cementoenamel junction. Half of the test specimens from each group underwent thermocycling; the other half remained in deionized water, at 37ºC. The specimens were immersed, for 24 hours, in a basic 0.5% fuchsin solution at 37ºC. For the analysis of microleakage, the specimens were sectioned in a mesio-distal direction, and the observation was carried out with the software Imagetools. The results were evaluated through the 2-way ANOVA and through the Tukey’s test. All groups presented marginal microleakage. The smallest values were obtained with Vitremer, followed by those obtained with the composite resins P-60 and Ariston pHc. There was no statistically significant difference caused by thermocycling, and the method of maximum infiltration was the best for detecting the extension of microleakage.

scholarly journals Evaluation of marginal fit and microleakage of monolithic zirconia crowns cemented by bio-active and glass ionomer cements: In vitro study

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Radwa Hamdy Aboelenen ◽  
Ashraf Mokhtar ◽  
Hanaa Zaghloul
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Marginal Gap ◽  
Marginal Fit ◽  
Group I ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Zirconia Crowns ◽  
Monolithic Zirconia ◽  
Ionomer Cement ◽  
Gap Values

Objective: To evaluate the marginal fit and microleakage of monolithic zirconia crowns cemented with bioactive cement (Ceramir) compared to that cemented with glass ionomer cement and to evaluate the effect of thermocycling on marginal fit. Materials and methods: Twenty sound human molar teeth were prepared to receive a monolithic zirconia crowns. Teeth were divided randomly into two equal groups according to the type of luting cement. Group I: glass ionomer cement and group II: Ceramir cement. After cementation, the vertical marginal gap was assessed by using stereomicroscope before and after thermocycling. Twenty equidistant measurement points were taken for each crown. Leakage assessment was carried out using Fuchsin dye penetration followed by digital photography under a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed by Mann-Whitney U test to compare between the two luting cements. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate the effect of thermocycling on the marginal fit (P ≤ 0.05)
Results: Whether before or after thermocycling, the results showed no significant difference between the marginal gap values of the two tested groups. For both groups, there was a significant increase in marginal gap values after thermocycling. Also, there was no significant difference between leakage scores of the two tested groups. Conclusions: Similarity in the physical properties and chemical composition of the two cements result in a non- significant effect on the vertical marginal fit and the extent of microleakage of translucent zirconia crowns.  Thermocycling had a negative impact on the vertical marginal gap of the two tested luting agents.

Effect of Glass Ionomer Cement and Fluoride Varnish on the Remineralization of Artificial Proximal Caries in Situ.

2009 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 131-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
C Trairatvorakul ◽  
P Techalertpaisarn ◽  
S Siwawut ◽  
A Ingprapankorn
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Control Area ◽  
Fluoride Varnish ◽  
Carious Lesion ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Lesion Area ◽  
Posterior Teeth ◽  
Proximal Caries ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Objective: To compare the effect of glass ionomer cement (GIC) and fluoride varnish (F-varnish) on artificial proximal caries in situ. Study design: Two 1×3 mm2 enamel slabs, divided into three 1×1 mm2 windows,were prepared from each proximal surface of 18 premolars. Each slab was distributed into a control area,an intact enamel area and a test area. Artificial lesions were created on the control and test areas by immersing in demineralizing solution for 24 hours. The test windows were either applied with GIC or F-varnish and the full slabs inserted into orthodontic brackets as carriers, which were then bonded to the buccal surfaces of the 6 upper posterior teeth of 6 volunteers using non-fluoride dentifrice for 30 days. There was a 1-week washout period in this crossover study. The middle specimens of the three windows were cross-sectioned to analyze the carious lesion area by a polarized light microscope and calculated with Image-Pro plus® software.Results: The average carious lesion area under GIC was significantly less than that under F-varnish(p&lt;0.05). Conclusion: GIC promotes more remineralization of artificial carious lesions on proximal surfaces than F-varnish.

scholarly journals Glass Ionomer Cements can be used for Bonding Orthodontic Brackets After Cancer Radiation Treatment?

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 128-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriela Cristina Santin ◽  
Alexandra Mussolino de Queiroz ◽  
Regina Guenka Palma-Dibb ◽  
Harley Francisco de Oliveira ◽  
Paulo Nelson Filho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Enamel Surface ◽  
Orthodontic Brackets ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Clinical Practices ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Abstract Patients undergoing radiotherapy treatment present more susceptibility to dental caries and the use of an orthodontic device increases this risk factor due to biofilm accumulation around the brackets. The objective of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength to irradiated permanent teeth of orthodontic brackets bonded with conventional glass ionomer cement and resin-modified glass ionomer cement due to the fluoride release capacity of these materials. Ninety prepared human premolars were divided into 6 groups (n=15), according to the bonding material and use or not of radiation: CR: Transbond XT composite resin; RMGIC: Fuji Ortho LC conventional glass ionomer cement; GIC: Ketac Cem Easymix resin-modified glass ionomer cement. The groups were irradiated (I) or non-irradiated (NI) prior to bracket bonding. The specimens were subjected to a fractioned radiation dose of 2 Gy over 5 consecutive days for 6 weeks. After the radiotherapy, the brackets were bonded on the specimens with Transbond XT, Fuji Ortho LC and Ketac Cem Easymix. After 24 h, the specimens were subjected to shear bond strength test. The image of enamel surface (classified by Adhesive Remnant Index - ARI) was also evaluated and its frequency was checked among groups/subgroups. The shear bond strength variable was evaluated with ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc test. GIC group showed the lowest adhesion values among the groups (p<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference among non-irradiated and irradiated groups (p>0.05). As for the ARI, the CR-I group showed the highest material retention on enamel surface among the irradiated groups. RMGIC group showed the highest values for shear bond strength and presented ARI acceptable for clinical practices.

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 Effect of Luting Cements On the Bond Strength to Turkom-Cera All-Ceramic Material

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 548-553 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bandar M. A. Al–Makramani ◽  
Abdul A. A. Razak ◽  
Mohamed I. Abu–Hassan ◽  
Fuad A. Al–Sanabani ◽  
Fahad M. Albakri
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Luting Cement ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
All Ceramic ◽  
Ionomer Cement

BACKGROUND: The selection of the appropriate luting cement is a key factor for achieving a strong bond between prepared teeth and dental restorations.AIM: To evaluate the shear bond strength of Zinc phosphate cement Elite, glass ionomer cement Fuji I, resin-modified glass ionomer cement Fuji Plus and resin luting cement Panavia-F to Turkom-Cera all-ceramic material.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Turkom-Cera was used to form discs 10mm in diameter and 3 mm in thickness (n = 40). The ceramic discs were wet ground, air - particle abraded with 50 - μm aluminium oxide particles and randomly divided into four groups (n = 10). The luting cement was bonded to Turkom-Cera discs as per manufacturer instructions. The shear bond strengths were determined using the universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The data were analysed using the tests One Way ANOVA, the nonparametric Kruskal - Wallis test and Mann - Whitney Post hoc test.RESULTS: The shear bond strength of the Elite, Fuji I, Fuji Plus and Panavia F groups were: 0.92 ± 0.42, 2.04 ± 0.78, 4.37 ± 1.18, and 16.42 ± 3.38 MPa, respectively. There was the statistically significant difference between the four luting cement tested (p < 0.05).CONCLUSION: the phosphate-containing resin cement Panavia-F exhibited shear bond strength value significantly higher than all materials tested.

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.

scholarly journals Shear Bond Strength of Self-Adhesive Flowable Composite, Conventional Flowable Composite and Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement to Primary Dentin

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kiana Poorzandpoush ◽  
Mehdi Shahrabi ◽  
Alireza Heidari ◽  
Zohre Sadat Hosseinipour
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Adhesive Failure ◽  
Flowable Composite ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Group 3 ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Objectives: This study aimed to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of self-adhesive and conventional flowable composites and resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC) to primary dentin. Materials and Methods: In this in vitro, experimental study, the buccal surface of 48 primary canine and first molar teeth was longitudinally sectioned to expose dentin. The teeth were randomly divided into three groups (n=16) of 37.5% phosphoric acid+ OptiBond+ Premise Flow composite (group 1), Vertise Flow composite (group 2) and RMGIC (group 3). A plastic cylindrical mold was placed on the exposed dentin and filled with restorative materials. The samples were then immersed in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours, subjected to 1000 thermal cycles between 5-55°C and underwent SBS test. The mode of failure was determined under a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test. Results: A significant difference was noted in SBS of the groups (P<0.05). The SBS of conventional flowable composite was significantly higher that of RMGIC and self-adhesive flowable composite (P<0.05). The difference in SBS of RMGIC and self-adhesive flowable composite was not significant (P>0.05). Failure at the dentin-restoration interface (adhesive failure) had the highest frequency in groups 1 and 2. The frequency of adhesive failure was 100% in group 3. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, the conventional flowable composite yielded the highest SBS to primary dentin. Self-adhesive flowable composite and RMGIC showed the lowest SBS with no significant difference with each other.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document