Properties of New Glass-Ionomer Restorative Systems Marketed for Stress-Bearing Areas

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 104-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
D Fuhrmann ◽  
D Murchison ◽  
S Whipple ◽  
K Vandewalle
Keyword(s):  
Fracture Toughness ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Surface Hardness ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Hardness Tester ◽  
Resin Coating ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Post Hoc

SUMMARY Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the properties (fracture toughness, surface hardness) of newer conventional glass-ionomer restorative materials that are marketed for posterior stress-bearing areas compared with more traditional glass-ionomer restorative materials marketed for non–load-bearing areas and composite-resin restorative materials. Methods and Materials: Notched-beam fracture toughness specimens were created in a mold with each tested material (Equia Forte, GC America, with and without a surface coating of Equia Forte Coat; Ketac Universal, 3M/ESPE; ChemFil Rock, Dentsply; Fuji IX GP Extra, GC; Ionostar Molar, VOCO; Filtek Z250, 3M/ESPE; Filtek Supreme Ultra, 3M/ESPE) and fractured using a universal testing machine after 24 hours of storage. Hardness values were determined on the surface of the fracture toughness specimens using a hardness tester. Data were analyzed with a one-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test per property (alpha=0.05). Results: The composite-resin restorative materials had significantly greater fracture toughness than the glass-ionomer materials. There was no significant difference in fracture toughness between the glass-ionomer materials. The use of a resin coating significantly increased the surface hardness of the newer glass ionomer marketed for stress-bearing areas. Conclusions: Fracture toughness was not improved with the newer glass-ionomer restorative materials marketed for stress-bearing areas compared to the conventional glass-ionomer materials, however a resin coating provided greater surface hardness.

Impact of Different Fiber Reinforcement on Flexural Strength, Fracture Toughness and Abrasive Resistance of Provisional Restorative Resin

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dr. Pratik Bhatnagar
Keyword(s):  
Fracture Toughness ◽  
Carbon Fiber ◽  
Flexural Strength ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Surface Hardness ◽  
Abrasive Resistance ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Post Hoc ◽  
The Impact

Aim: To assess and compare the impact of reinforcement of PMMA with glass fibre, polyethylene fibre and carbon fibres on flexural strength, fracture toughness and abrasive resistance. Background: In view of inadequate mechanical and physical characteristics of PMMA which include low impact strength and low surface hardness and resulting lowered clinical performance of the prosthesis, the study was designed to investigate the impact of reinforcement of PMMA with glass, polyethylene and carbon fibers on flexural strength, fracture toughness and abrasive resistance. Methods and Findings: Rectangular specimens (n=120; 30 each from 4 groups; 65 × 10 × 3.3 mm3) were fabricated and loaded on Universal Testing Machine until fracture for flexural strength and fracture toughness and on Taber Abrasive Tester for abrasive resistance. Data were analyzed using one–way ANOVA followed by Post Hoc test - Bonferroni multiple comparison analysis, using significance level of 0.05. Significant increase in fracture toughness was observed in specimens reinforced with polyethylene and carbon fiber, albeit the values of flexural strength were increased insignificantly. Specimens reinforced with glass and carbon fiber had significantly low values of abrasive resistance. Conclusion: Findings indicate that reinforcement of PMMA by non-specific fibers like glass, polyethylene and carbon resulted in significant increase in fracture toughness and decrease in abrasive resistance.

scholarly journals Time-dependent Variation in Compressive Strengths of Three Posterior Esthetic Restorative Materials: An in vitro Study

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 63-65
Author(s):  
Anjna Sharma ◽  
Pankaj Mishra
Keyword(s):  
Testing Machine ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Time Dependent ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Restorative Materials

ABSTRACT Aim To compare the compressive strengths of composite resins and resin-modified glass ionomer cements (RMGICs) at different times. Materials and methods A total of 36 samples were prepared, 12 samples of each group, composite resins Filtek Z 250, Filtek Z 350, and resin-modified glass ionomer cement. Compressive strengths of specimens were measured after 1, 24 hours, and 7 days. Test was carried out on a “Universal Testing Machine” with cross-head speed of 5 mm/min. Results There was a significant difference between all the three restorative materials. Analysis of variance showed that mean compressive strengths of Z 250 after 1, 24 hours were higher than Z 350 and RMGIC (p < 0.05). The mean compressive strengths were reduced after 7 days in all the three groups, but after 7 days, the values of Z 250 when compared with the Z 350 and RMGIC were higher. Conclusion The study demonstrated that compressive strengths of hybrid composite resins (Z 250) were significantly higher than that of nanocomposites (Z 350) and RMGIC. How to cite this article Sharma A, Mishra P, Mishra SK. Time-dependent Variation in Compressive Strengths of Three Posterior Esthetic Restorative Materials: An in vitro Study. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2016;6(3):63-65.

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

The Effect of Bleaching Agents on the Surface Hardness of Tooth Colored Restorative Materials

2005 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 18-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadia Malek Taher
Keyword(s):  
Testing Machine ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Surface Hardness ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Base Line ◽  
Distilled Water ◽  
Softening Effect ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Post Hoc ◽  
At Home

Abstract Aim of the Study The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of at-home (Opalesence/Dr. kit 15%, Ultradent, Products, Inc. South Jordan, UT, USA) and in-office (Superoxol 35%, Sultan Chemists, Inc., Englewood, NJ, USA) bleaching on the surface hardness of the following tooth colored restorative materials: composite resin, Point-4 (P4), Kerr Corporation, Orange, CA, USA; ormocer, Admira (AD),VOCO, Germany; compomer Dyract AP (DY), Dentsply DeTrey GmbH, Germany; and resin modified glass ionomer cement, Fuji II LC (FL), GC Corporation, Japan. Methodology Sixty specimens were prepared; 15 specimens of each material (each group n = 5, control after 15 days, at-home and in-office). All specimens were stored in distilled water at room temperature for 24 hrs before testing. A universal testing machine (Micromet 2100 series micro hardness testers) was used for testing Vicker's surface hardness for the three groups for every tested material. All results were statistically analyzed with one way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Post hoc Tukey HSD tests (P<0.05), and percentage changes for Tukey. Results All the tested materials showed an increase in Vicker's surface hardness between base line (24 hrs) and the control group after 15 days storage in distilled water except DY which showed a decrease in surface hardness. All tested materials showed a decrease in surface hardness from control group after 15 days and both at-home and in-office bleaching agents except DY which showed increased values. Significance At-home as well as in-office bleaching agents have a softening effect on some tooth colored restorative material, and the patient must be aware before using them. Citation Taher NM. The Effect of Bleaching Agents on the Surface Hardness of Tooth Colored Restorative Materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2005 May;(6)2:018-026.

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 Pengaruh Perendaman Kopi Robusta dan Arabika terhadap Kekerasan Resin Komposit Nanofiller

e-GIGI ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fransiska M. Pardosi ◽  
Darmawati A. Indraswari ◽  
Lusiana Batubara ◽  
Nadia Hardini
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Artificial Saliva ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Arabica Coffee ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Hardness Tester ◽  
Robusta Coffee ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Post Hoc ◽  
One Way Anova

Abstract: Nanofiller composite resin has small filler size which enhances its properties. However, these properties could decrease due to several factors. Acidic liquid such as coffee could reduce the hardness of composite resin. This study was aimed to analyze the effect of robusta and arabica coffee immersion on the hardness of nanofiller composite resin. A total of 27 composite resin samples were used and then were polished by using a soflex disc for 30 seconds on each roughness level. Samples were then divided into three groups, as follows: the control group with artificial saliva and the treatment groups with robusta coffee and arabica coffee. The composite resin molds were immersed in the three groups for 5 days. After five days of immersion, the hardness of the sample was tested by using a Vickers hardness tester. Artificial saliva as the control group had the highest mean hardness value of 112.98±8.67 VHN, followed by robusta coffee, and then by arabica coffee. The One Way Anova and post hoc LSD test showed that there were significant differences in all groups (p<0.05) except for the two treatment groups, namely robusta and arabica coffee groups which did not show any significant difference in the resin hardness (p>0.05). In conclusion, robusta and arabica coffee affect the hardness of the nanofiller composite resin, but there is no significant difference in the hardness between the robusta and arabica coffee groups.Keywords: composite resin hardness, nanofiller, robusta coffee, arabica coffee Abstrak: Resin komposit nanofiller memiliki ukuran filler kecil yang dapat meningkatkan fungsinya namun fungsi tersebut dapat menurun oleh beberapa hal. Cairan asam yang dikonsumsi seperti kopi dapat menurunkan kekerasan resin komposit. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui pengaruh perendaman kopi robusta dan arabika terhadap kekerasan resin komposit nanofiller. Sampel resin komposit yang digunakan sebanyak 27 buah dan dilanjutkan dengan pemolesan menggunakan soflex disc selama 30 detik setiap tingkat kekasarannya. Sampel kemudian dibagi dalam tiga kelompok, yaitu kelompok kontrol dengan saliva buatan dan dua kelompok perlakuan dengan kopi robusta dan arabika. Sebanyak 27 buah resin komposit direndam ke dalam tiga kelompok tersebut selama lima hari kemudian diuji kekerasannya dengan vickers hardness tester. Saliva buatan sebagai kelompok kontrol memiliki nilai rerata kekerasan tertinggi sebesar 112,98±8,67 VHN, diikuti kopi robusta, dan nilai terendah yaitu kopi arabika. Hasil uji One Way Anova dan post hoc LSD menunjukkan terdapat perbedaan bermakna pada semua kelompok (p<0,05) kecuali pada kedua kelompok perlakuan yaitu antara kopi robusta dan arabika tidak menunjukkan adanya perbedaan kekerasan yang bermakna (p>0,05). Simpulan penelitian ini ialah kopi robusta dan arabika memengaruhi kekerasan resin komposit nanofiller namun tidak terdapat perbedaan kekerasan antara keduanya.Kata kunci: kekerasan resin komposit, nanofiller, kopi robusta, kopi arabika

scholarly journals Comparison of time-dependent changes in the surface hardness of different composite resins

2013 ◽  
Vol 07 (S 01) ◽  
pp. S020-S025 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suat Ozcan ◽  
Ihsan Yikilgan ◽  
Mine Betul Uctasli ◽  
Oya Bala ◽  
Zeliha Gonca Bek Kurklu
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Surface Hardness ◽  
Multiple Comparisons ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Time Dependent ◽  
Bottom Surface ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Hardness Tester ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Hardness Values

ABSTRACT Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the change in surface hardness of silorane-based composite resin (Filtek Silorane) in time and compare the results with the surface hardness of two methacrylate-based resins (Filtek Supreme and Majesty Posterior). Materials and Methods: From each composite material, 18 wheel-shaped samples (5-mm diameter and 2-mm depth) were prepared. Top and bottom surface hardness of these samples was measured using a Vicker′s hardness tester. The samples were then stored at 37°C and 100% humidity. After 24 h and 7, 30 and 90 days, the top and bottom surface hardness of the samples was measured. In each measurement, the rate between the hardness of the top and bottom surfaces were recorded as the hardness rate. Statistical analysis was performed by one-way analysis of variance, multiple comparisons by Tukey′s test and binary comparisons by t-test with a significance level of P = 0.05. Results: The highest hardness values were obtained from each two surfaces of Majesty Posterior and the lowest from Filtek Silorane. Both the top and bottom surface hardness of the methacrylate based composite resins was high and there was a statistically significant difference between the top and bottom hardness values of only the silorane-based composite, Filtek Silorane (p < 0.05). The lowest was obtained with Filtek Silorane. The hardness values of all test groups increased after 24 h (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Although silorane-based composite resin Filtek Silorane showed adequate hardness ratio, the use of incremental technic during application is more important than methacrylate based composites.

Shear bond strength of six restorative materials

2001 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 221-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Majed Almuammar ◽  
Allen Schulman ◽  
Fouad Salama
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Occlusal Surfaces ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Bond Strengths ◽  
The Mean

The purpose of this study was to determine and compare the shear bond strength of a conventional glassionomer cement, a resin modified glass-ionomer, a composite resin and three compomer restorative materials. Dentin of the occlusal surfaces from sixty extracted human permanent molars were prepared for shear bond strength testing. The specimens were randomly divided into six groups of 10 each. Dentinal surfaces were treated according to the instructions of manufacturers for each material. Each restorative material was placed inside nylon cylinders 2 mm high with an internal diameter of 3 mm, which were placed perpendicular to dentin surfaces. Shear bond strengths were determined using an Universal Testing Machine at crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min in a compression mode. Conventional glass-ionomer, Ketac-Molar aplicap showed the lowest mean shear bond strength 3.77 ± 1.76 (X ± SD MPa) and the composite resin, Heliomolar showed the highest mean shear bond strength 16.54 ± 1.65 while the mean bond strength of Fuji II LC was 9.55 ± 1.06. The shear bond strengths of compomer restorative materials were 12.83 ± 1.42, 10.64 ± 1.42 and 11.19 ± 1.19 for Compoglass, Hytac and Dyract respectively. ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences in the mean shear bond strengths of all groups (P&lt;0.001). No statistically significant difference was found between the three compomer materials (P&gt;0.5). Ketac-Molar and composite resin showed statistically significant difference (P&lt;0.0005). The mode of fracture varied between materials. It is concluded that the compomer restorative materials show higher shear bond strength than conventional glass-ionomer and resin modified glass-ionomer, but less than composite resin. The fracture mode is not related to the shear bond strengths values.

scholarly journals Compressive strength of esthetic restorative materials polymerized with quartz-tungsten-halogen light and blue LED

2009 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cecy Martins Silva ◽  
Katia Regina Hostilio Cervantes Dias
Keyword(s):  
Compressive Strength ◽  
Light Source ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Light Emitting Diode ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Quartz Tungsten Halogen ◽  
Halogen Light ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Light Curing

This study compared the compressive strength of a composite resin and compomer photoactivated with a conventional quartz-tungsten halogen-light (XL 3000, 3M/SPE) and a blue light-emitting diode (LED) (SmartLite PS; Dentsply/De Trey). Forty disc-shaped specimens were prepared using a split polytetrafluoroethylene matrix (4.0 mm diameter x 8.0 mm hight) in which the materials were inserted incrementally. The curing time of each increment was of 40 s with the QTH and 10 s with the LED. The specimens were randomly assigned to 4 groups (n=10), according to the light source and the restorative material. After storage in distilled water at 37oC ± 2oC for 24 h, the specimens was tested in compressive strength in a universal testing machine with load cell of 500 kgf running at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Data (in MPa) were analyzed statistically by ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls test (p<0.05). For the composite resin, light curing with the QTH source did not produce statistically significant difference (p>0.05) in the compressive strength when compared to light curing with the LED source. However, light curing of the compomer with the QTH source resulted in significantly higher compressive strength than the use of the LED unit (p>0.05). The composite resin presented significantly higher (p>0.05) compressive strength than the compomer, regardless of the light source. In conclusion, the compressive strength of the tested materials photoactivated with a QTH and a LED light source was influenced by the energy density employed and the chemical composition of the esthetic restorative materials.

scholarly journals In vitro Evaluation of Topical Fluoride ph and their Effect on Surface Hardness of Composite Resin-based Restorative Materials

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 190-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samir Mansuri ◽  
Abdul Mujeeb ◽  
Seema Abid Hussain ◽  
Kausar Ramaswamy
Keyword(s):  
Sodium Fluoride ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Surface Hardness ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Mouth Rinse ◽  
In Vitro Evaluation ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Topical Fluoride

ABSTRACT Aim The aim of the study was to correlate the pH and fluoride ion uptake with surface hardness of composite resin based restorative materials after topical fluoride application. Methodology Forty disks of each of test materials Composite (Filtek Z350XT, 3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA), Resin modified glass ionomer (Vitremer) and Compomer (Dyract AP) were made and ten disks of each material were placed in different test solutions – 1.23% APF gel, Sodium fluoride mouth rinse, 0.9% neutral fluoride and distilled water (Control group). After 36 hours of immersion, specimens were subjected to microhardness testing machine for evaluation of surface hardness. Results The greater hardness deterioration for all materials resulted with 1.23% APF gel when compared to the control group. Composite (Filtek Z350XT, 3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA) showed 17.13 VHN (control group 59.11 VHN). Vitremer showed 9.71 VHN (control group 37.71 VHN). Compomer showed 19.22 VHN (control group 36.78 VHN). Conclusion 1.23% ApF gel significantly decreased hardness of composite, Vitremer and Compomer. Hardness deterioration associated with sodium fluoride mouth rinse and 0.9% neutral fluoride was less compared to 1.23% ApF gel. How to cite this article Mujeeb A, Mansuri S. Hussain SA, Ramaswamy K. In vitro Evaluation of Topical Fluoride pH and their Effect on Surface Hardness of Composite Resin-based Restorative Materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2014;15(2): 190-194.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document