scholarly journals A Comparison Of Surface Roughness Values of Various Restorative Materials Immersed in Pedodontic Pre- and Probiotics

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 14389-14402
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Artificial Saliva ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
High Viscosity ◽  
Inorganic Filler ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Sem Images ◽  
Restorative Materials

The present in vitro study aims to evaluate pre- and probiotic liquids' effect on surface roughness values of restorative materials after one month of immersion. 360 disc-shaped samples (5mm x 2mm) were prepared from two types of glass-ionomer cements (GIC), a resin-modified GIC, a compomer, three bulk-fill composites, and one microhybrid composite. After the surfaces were polished, samples were divided into three groups (n = 15) and immersed for 10 minutes daily for one month in either a probiotic sachet, kefir (prebiotic), or artificial saliva. After that, the surface roughness values were measured by a profilometer. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) evaluations of one sample from tested materials were also added. Statistical data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Bonferroni–Dunn tests. One of the GIC materials had significantly rougher surfaces in the probiotic sachet, followed by the compomer (p < 0.05). The compomer showed the roughest surfaces after immersion in kefir, followed by the microhybrid composite (Z250). Probiotic sachets formed rougher surfaces than kefir among samples. SEM images revealed the inorganic filler structures and microcracks on the surfaces. A high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement, Equia Fil Forte, and other composite-based materials tested in the present study can be used in pediatric patients who use pre- and probiotic supplements.

scholarly journals Marginal Leakage of Endodontic Temporary Restorative Materials around Access Cavities Prepared with Pre-Endodontic Composite Build-Up: An In Vitro Study

Materials ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (7) ◽  
pp. 1700
Author(s):  
Atsushi Kameyama ◽  
Aoi Saito ◽  
Akiko Haruyama ◽  
Tomoaki Komada ◽  
Setsuko Sugiyama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Zinc Oxide ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Restorative Material ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Zinc Oxide Eugenol ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Ionomer Cement

This study aimed to examine the marginal seal between various commercial temporary restorative materials and exposed dentin/built-up composite. Sixty bovine incisors were cut above the cemento-enamel junction, and half of the dentin was removed to form a step, which was built up using flowable resin composite. The root canals were irrigated, filled with calcium hydroxide, and sealed using one of six temporary sealing materials (hydraulic temporary restorative material, temporary stopping material, zinc oxide eugenol cement, glass-ionomer cement, auto-cured resin-based temporary restorative material, and light-cured resin-based temporary restorative material) (n = 10 for each material). The samples were thermocycled 500 times and immersed in an aqueous solution of methylene blue. After 2 days, they were cut along the long axis of the tooth and the depth of dye penetration was measured at the dentin side and the built-up composite side. For the margins of the pre-endodontic resin composite build-up, the two resin-based temporary restorative materials showed excellent sealing. Hydraulic temporary restorative material had a moderate sealing effect, but the sealing effect of both zinc oxide eugenol cement and glass-ionomer cement was poorer.

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.

scholarly journals Effect of Energy Drinks on Color Stability of Different Restorative Materials

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
AlSarheed M ◽  
Salama F
Keyword(s):  
Resin Composite ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Color Stability ◽  
Energy Drinks ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Hybrid Resin ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Background: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of finishing/polishing procedures on color stability of three restorative materials: Nano-hybrid resin composite (NRC), silver glass ionomer cement (SGI), and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGI) exposed to different staining of energy drinks: Barbican, Bison, and Red bull.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Marginal Adaptation and Microleakage of Three Glass Ionomer-Based Class V Restorations: In Vitro Study

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (04) ◽  
pp. 599-606 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maha M. Ebaya ◽  
Ashraf I. Ali ◽  
Salah H. Mahmoud
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Class V ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Negative Effect ◽  
Molar Teeth

Abstract Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the marginal adaptation and microleakage of class V cavities restored with conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC), resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI), and bioactive ionic resin (BIR) restorative materials after 6 months of water storage. Materials and Methods One hundred twenty standardized class V cavities (2 mm deep, 4 mm in width, and 3 mm in height) were prepared in sound extracted human molar teeth, where the coronal margins were in enamel while the cervical margins were in dentin. Three glass ionomer-based restorations were tested (n = 40): GIC (Equia Fil), RMGI (Fuji II LC), and BIR (ACTIVA Bioactive Restorative). Half of the teeth from each group (n = 20) were evaluated for their marginal adaptation with scanning electron microscopy and the other half submitted to dye penetration test to examine microleakage. Further division for each subgroup (n = 10) occurred to be tested immediately, while the remaining teeth were examined after keeping for 6 months and thermocycling. Statistical analysis The outcomes were analyzed by Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U tests. Results No statistically significant differences were observed among the three studied restorative materials. However, the differences were statistically significant in microleakage test between enamel and dentin and after water aging. Conclusion All tested restorative materials exhibited the same marginal adaptation and microleakage. Dentin substrate revealed greater microleakage than enamel, especially with BIR restorative material. Water aging had a negative effect on RMGI with respect to microleakage.

Antimicrobial Activity of Glass Ionomer Cements with Chlorhexidine and Propolis: An In Vitro Study

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (04) ◽  
pp. 168-170
Author(s):  
Makbule Tugba Tuncdemir ◽  
Ayşe Ruveyda Ugur ◽  
Bilgen Ozdemir
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Inhibition Zone ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Mueller Hinton Agar ◽  
Liquid Preparation

AbstractThe aim of this study was to evaluate the antibacterial effect of conventional glass ionomer cement with the addition of antibacterial constituents in its liquid preparation. Two groups of glass ionomers prepared with propolis and chlorhexidine and a third group without any additive used as control were sterilized by low-temperature hydrogen peroxide plasma sterilizer at the sterilization unit. Seven to eight disk-shaped restorative materials of each group were placed on the Mueller Hinton Agar with sheep blood 5% v/v, on which Streptococcus mutans inoculated. The plates were incubated at 37°C in 5% CO2 for 24 to 48 hours. After 24-hour and 48-hour-incubation, inhibition zone diameters of each restorative materials were measured. No distinct inhibition zone was reported; only a slight zone (6 mm) around the contact surfaces of each material was observed after the 24-hour and 48-hour incubations. No significant difference was observed in the inhibition zone diameters between the two test groups and control. Within the limitations of this study, results revealed that there was no antibacterial difference among glass ionomers prepared with propolis and chlorhexidine.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document