scholarly journals Clinical Evaluation of Glass-Lonomer Cement and Giomer for the Management of Cervical Caries

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 60-64
Author(s):  
Nurun Nahar ◽  
Tareq Hassan ◽  
Mohammed Kamal Uddin
Keyword(s):  
Patient Group ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
P Value ◽  
Filling Material ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Secondary Caries ◽  
History Of ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Ionomer Cement ◽  
Group 1

Background: Giomer is a unique class of restorative material has been introduced as the true hybridization of Glass Ionomer (GI) and composite resin and has the distinguishing feature of a stable surface pre-reacted glass ionomer. Glass Ionomer Cements (GIC) are also unique restorative materials with many uses in clinical practice and provide for caries-protective fluoride releasing at the margins of restorations, as well as their ability to have the fluoride within their chemical matrix recharged by outside exposure to other fluoride-containing materials. The present study aim at clinically evaluate the comparison between the glass Ionomer cement and Giomer for the management of cervical caries. Materials and methods: The study was a cross sectional comparative study which was carried out from 01 December 2018 to 31 November 2019 in the Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Bangladesh Dental College, Dhanmondi, Dhaka. Total number of cases was 80. The patients were divided into two groups, half of the patient (Group-1) was treated with Glass Ionomer cement and half of the patient (Group-2) was treated with Giomer restoration. The post-operative sensitivity discoloration, dislodgement of filling material and secondary caries formation were recorded. All the patients were assigned and the data were analyzed statistically by SPSS version 21. p-value < 0.05 was taken as significant. Results: The study reveals 60% of the study population was within 41 to 50 years of age group (Group-1) and 62.5% were 51 to 60 years (Group-2) 45% in (Group-1) and 10% in (Group-2) had history of post filling sensitivity, 12% in (Group-1) and 5% in (Group-2) had discoloration after restoration, 2.5% had history of dislodgement of the filling in (Group-1), no history of dislodgement of the filling in (Group-2), 2.5% had history of secondary caries formation in (Group-1) and no history of Secondary caries formation in (Group-2). Conclusion: Patients were more approachable for Giomer restoration than Glass ionomer for the management of cervical caries over a period of 12 month. Chatt Maa Shi Hosp Med Coll J; Vol.20 (2); July 2021; Page 60-64

Microleakage of class II restoration with zirconia inlay: An in vitro study

2019 ◽  
pp. 61-67
Author(s):  
Xuan Anh Ngoc Ho ◽  
Anh Chi Phan ◽  
Toai Nguyen
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Ionomer Cement ◽  
Group 1 ◽  
Composite Restoration

Background: Class II restoration with zirconia inlay is concerned by numerous studies about the luting coupling between zirconia inlay and teeth. The present study was performed to evaluate the microleakage of Class II zirconia inlayusing two different luting agents and compare to direct restoration using bulk fill composite. Aims: To evaluate the microleakage of Class II restorations using three different techniques. Materials and methods: The study was performed in laboratory with three groups. Each of thirty extracted human teeth was prepared a class II cavity with the same dimensions, then these teeth were randomly divided into 3 groups restored by 3 different approaches. Group 1: zirconia inlay cemented with self-etch resin cement (Multilink N); Group 2: zirconia inlay cemented with resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Fuji Plus); Group 3: direct composite restoration using bulk fill composite(Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill). All restorations were subjected to thermal cycling (100 cycles 50C – 55 0C), then immersed to 2% methylene blue solution for 24 hours. The microleakage determined by the extent of dye penetration along the gingival wall was assessed using two methods: quantitative and semi-quantitative method. Results: Among three types of restorations, group 1 demonstrated the significantly lower rate of leakage compared to the others, while group 2 and 3 showed no significant difference. Conclusion: Zirconia inlay restoration cemented with self-etch resin cement has least microleakage degree when compare to class II zirconia inlay restoration cemented with resin-modified glass ionomer cement and direct composite restoration using bulk fill composite. Key words: inlay, zirconia ceramic, class II restoration, microleakage.

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

Biomechanical strength of glass ionomer cement in incudostapedial rebridging

2015 ◽  
Vol 129 (2) ◽  
pp. 148-154
Author(s):  
E A Server ◽  
Z Alkan ◽  
O Yigit ◽  
E Acioglu ◽  
A Bekem ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Compressive Strength ◽  
Bone Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Maximum Force ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Maximum Compressive Strength ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Ionomer Cement ◽  
Group 1

AbstractObjective:To study the biomechanical properties of glass ionomer cement used for incudostapedial rebridging.Methods:Two groups were established based on the size of the gap between the incus and stapes (1.0 mm in group 1 and 2.0 mm in group 2). Glass ionomer cement was applied to the gaps, and compression tests were performed. Maximum force was measured at the fracture point, and was divided by the cross-sectional area to obtain the maximum compressive strength.Results:No significant difference was found in the maximum force for the two groups (p = 0.312). The glass ionomer cement diameter was significantly higher in group 2 than in group 1 (p = 0.006). The maximum compressive strength was significantly higher in group 1 than in group 2 (p = 0.042).Conclusion:The fragility of bone cement used in this study was 25.5 per cent higher for a 2 mm gap than for a 1 mm gap. We speculate that the use of bone cement may be safer for the repair of smaller incudostapedial defects.

scholarly journals Effect of Enamel Etching on Tensile Bond Strength of Brackets Bonded In Vivo with a Resin-reinforced Glass Ionomer Cement

2007 ◽  
Vol 77 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriella Rosenbach ◽  
Julio Pedrae Cal-Neto ◽  
Silvio Rosan Oliveira ◽  
Orlando Chevitarese ◽  
Marco Antonio Almeida
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Tensile Bond Strength ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Ionomer Cement ◽  
Group 1

Abstract Objective: To evaluate the influence of enamel etching on tensile bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement. Materials and Methods: The sample group consisted of 15 patients who had indications for extraction of four premolars for orthodontic reasons, equally divided into two different groups according to bracket and enamel preparation. Brackets were bonded in vivo, by the same operator, using a split mouth random technique: Group 1 (control), phosphoric acid + Fuji Ortho LC; Group 2, Fuji Ortho LC without acid conditioning. The teeth were extracted after 4 weeks using elevators. An Instron Universal Testing Machine was used to apply a tensile force directly to the enamel-bracket interface at a speed of 0.5 mm/min. The groups were compared using a Mann-Whitney U-test and Weibull analysis. Results: Mean results and standard deviations (in MPa) for the groups were: Group 1, 6.26 (3.21), Group 2, 6.52 (2.73). No significant difference was observed in the bond strengths of the two groups evaluated (P = .599). Conclusions: Fuji Ortho LC showed adequate shear bond strength and may be suitable for clinical use.

scholarly journals Sealing Ability of Three Different Surface Coating Materials on Conventional and Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Restoration in Primary Anterior Teeth: An In vitro Study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anshula Deshpande ◽  
Chirag Macwan ◽  
Steffi Dhillon ◽  
Medha Wadhwa ◽  
Neelam Joshi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surface Coating ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Coating Materials ◽  
Anterior Teeth ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Ionomer Cement ◽  
Group 1

Introduction: Microleakage is an important property that has been used in assessing the success of any restorative material used in restoring a tooth. Immediate application of a surface coating agent is suggested to protect glass ionomer cement against moisture contamination and dehydration during early setting. Aim: To compare marginal microleakage of two different Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC)- Conventional GIC and Resin Modified GIC in primary anterior teeth using three surface coating materials. Materials and Methods: An in vitro study was conducted between January 2014 to October 2017 on freshly extracted 40 anterior primary teeth which were randomly assigned into two main groups (Fuji II GIC and Fuji II LC GIC) with four subgroups (control-no surface coating, A=GC Fují Varnish II, B=GC G-Coat Plus, C=Icon). A standardised Class V cavity preparation was prepared on the labial surface of each tooth. Specimens were coated with two layers of nail varnish, leaving a 1 mm window around the cavity margins and placed in a solution of Methylene blue Dye for 24 hour at 37°C. The teeth were sectioned longitudinally in a buccolingual direction of the restorations and evaluated under stereomicroscope to check extent of dye penetration. The results were analysed by ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc test (p≤0.05). Results: It was found that maximum microleakage was seen in group 1 (Fuji II GIC) as compared to group 2 (Fuji II LC GIC) and it was non-significant (p=0.53). Ascending order for mean microleakage for Group 1 was as follows: Control >GC Fuji Varnish >Icon DMG >GC G-Coat and for Group 2: Control >GC Fuji Varnish >Icon DMG >GC G-Coat. Icon when compared with Gc coat and Varnish also showed non-significant (p=0.137) difference in Group 2. Conclusion: All three different surface coatings can seal glass ionomer restorations. The GC G-Coat Plus has the least microleakage on Resin-Modified GIC (RMGIC) compared to the other surface coatings. This would aid the clinicians to make appropriate decision regarding the choice of material to be used for restoration and coating in anterior primary teeth.

scholarly journals Comparison of two early treatment protocols for anterior dental crossbite in the mixed dentition: A randomized trial

2017 ◽  
Vol 88 (2) ◽  
pp. 144-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cristina B. Miamoto ◽  
Leandro S. Marques ◽  
Lucas G. Abreu ◽  
Saul M. Paiva
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
T Test ◽  
Mixed Dentition ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Treatment Protocols ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Maxilla And Mandible ◽  
Ionomer Cement ◽  
Intercanine Distance ◽  
Group 1

ABSTRACT Objective: To evaluate and compare two treatment protocols to correct anterior dental crossbite in the mixed dentition. Materials and Methods: Thirty children, 8–10 years of age, participated. Individuals were divided into two groups. Group 1 consisted of 15 children treated with an upper removable appliance with finger springs; group 2, 15 children treated by bonding resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement bite pads on the lower first molars. The 30 participants were evaluated before treatment (T1) and 12 months after treatment began (T2). The variables evaluated included overjet, perimeter of the maxillary arch, intercanine distances in the maxilla and mandible, SNA, SNB, ANB, and U1.NA. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, paired t-test and Student's t-test. Effect sizes and confidence intervals were also calculated. Results: Group 1 showed a significant increase in overjet (P &lt; .001), intercanine distance in the maxilla (P = .006), intercanine distance in the mandible (P = .031), and U1.NA (P = .002). Group 2 showed a significant increase in overjet (P = .008), intercanine distance in the mandible (P = .005), and U1.NA (P &lt; .001). For all the evaluated variables, no statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups. Conclusions: No significant differences were observed between the two protocols: use of a removable maxillary biteplate with finger springs and bonding of resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement bite pads on the lower first molars, for the correction of anterior crossbite in the mixed dentition.

scholarly journals Kekuatan Perlekatan Geser Tumpatan Semen Ionomer Kaca pada Dentin setelah Aplikasi Dentin Conditioner dan Cavity Conditioner

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 36
Author(s):  
Dewi Kusuma Wardani ◽  
Ruslan Effendy ◽  
Widya Saraswati
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Polyacrylic Acid ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Smear Layer ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Group 3 ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Ionomer Cement ◽  
Group 1

Backround: Smear layer formed during cavity preparation interfere with the adhesion between restoration and tooth structure and is considered a barrier that would degrade the quality of adhesion. Smear layer does not have a stable substrate for adhesion, gradually layer dissolves in the restorative material and cause microleakage, penetration of bacteria and inflammation of the pulp. Adhesion to dentin is more difficult to achieve than enamel, therefore the cleaning procedure on dentin require special treatment. Conditioner form a weak acid is used to remove the smear layer and surface contamination on the email or dentin which can reduce the adhesion of the material and the tooth surface. Dentin conditioner is an acid material containing 10% polyacrylic acid conditioner while Cavity conditioner an acid material containing 20% polyacrylic acid and 3% aluminum chloride. The higher the concentration, the more smear layer is dissolved in order to obtain adhesion of glass ionomer cements better because it is not blocked by the smear layer. Purpose: The purpose of this laboratory research is to study the shear bond strength of glass ionomer cement in dentin after application dentin conditioner and cavity conditioner .Material and Method: Twenty seven bovine cow's teeth were divided into three groups. Each group consisted of nine samples. Group 1 was control (without conditioner). Group 2 was treated with the Dentin conditioner. Group 3 was treated with the Cavity conditioner. Result: The average shear bond strength in group 1 is 3.31 Mpa, group 2 is 7.74 MPa and group 3 is 9.92 Mpa. Conclusion: There is a significant difference between third group and the shear bond strength of glass ionomer cement on dentin with application of the Cavity conditioner is higher than with application of the Dentin conditioner and without application conditioner

scholarly journals A COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF POSTERIOR RESTORATIVE MATERIALS: AN IN VITRO STUDY

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gurmeen Kaur ◽  
Chitharanjan Shetty ◽  
Aditya Shetty ◽  
MITHRA HEGDE
Keyword(s):  
Compressive Strength ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Restorative Material ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Group 4 ◽  
Group 3 ◽  
Group 5 ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Ionomer Cement ◽  
Group 1

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The ‘Basic filling materials’ Amalgam and glass ionomer have been well accepted for posterior restorations, but have multifarious drawbacks such as low flexural strength, surface wear, porosity of glass ionomer cements, intrinsic grey unaesthetic appearance of amalgam, its inability to bond tooth and concerns about mercury content. Hence, newer materials were introduced in the market with better biomechanical properties. The present study aimed to evaluate and compare the compressive strength of Ceramic-Reinforced Glass Ionomer cement, Zirconia-Reinforced Glass Ionomer cement, High Strength Glass Ionomer Posterior restorative material, Alkasite restorative material, and Amalgam when used as posterior restorative materials. METHODOLOGY: Fifty cylindrical specimens measuring 6mm in height and 4mm in diameter were fabricated using test materials. Class II cavity was prepared on fifty intact permanent human molar teeth and randomly divided into five groups based on the material to be filled with ten specimens each: Group 1- Ceramic-Reinforced Glass Ionomer cement, group 2- Zirconia-Reinforced Glass Ionomer cement group 3- High Strength Glass Ionomer Posterior restorative material group 4- Alkasite restorative material and group 5- amalgam. All the specimens were thermocycled and stored in artificial saliva for 24 hours. The specimens were subjected to compressive strength testing using Universal Testing Machine (Zwick Roell, Z020, Zwick, Ulm, Germany). Data were analyzed statistically using IMB SPSS Statistics, Version 22 (Armonk, NY: IBM Corp). RESULTS: The present study reveals a significantly high compressive strength of cylindrical specimens of Group 4, followed by Group 5, Group 3, Group 1, and least by Group 2. The highest maximum compressive load was supported by teeth restored with the material of Group 4, Group 1, Group 5, Group 2, and least by Group 3. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the study, alkasite restorative material showed the highest compressive strength in cylindrical and tooth specimens.

scholarly journals A 26-year-old female with faulty existing restorations

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 27-30
Author(s):  
Ram Udgar Yadav ◽  
Sageer Ahmed ◽  
Mozammal Hossain
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Examination ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Lateral Incisor ◽  
Radiographic Examination ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Proximal Surface ◽  
Mobility Test ◽  
Anterior Teeth ◽  
History Of ◽  
Ionomer Cement

This article has no abstract. The first 100 words appear below: A 26-year-old female came with unaesthetic restorations on the upper four anterior teeth. She gave a history of the restoration of the teeth 6 months ago that underwent progressive marginal discoloration. On clinical examination, two upper central and two lateral incisor teeth were restored by Glass Ionomer cement and Secondary caries were present beneath restorations. Teeth were vital and did not respond to percussion and mobility test. Radiographic examination revealed that the four maxillary anterior teeth (2 central and 2 laterals) had the existing restoration which showed a radioopaque area in the proximal surface but radiolucent areas were also seen beneath the radioopaque area that extends to the dentin.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document