scholarly journals Acid Resistance of Glass Ionomer Cement Restorative Materials

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 150
Author(s):  
Dinuki Perera ◽  
Sean C. H. Yu ◽  
Henry Zeng ◽  
Ian A. Meyers ◽  
Laurence J. Walsh
Keyword(s):  
Lactic Acid ◽  
Citric Acid ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Acid Resistance ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Weight Changes ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Percentage Weight ◽  
Soluble Material

In view of the need for aesthetics, restorations of teeth will typically be completed using tooth colored restorative materials. With the advent of biomimetic restorative materials, such as glass ionomer cements (GIC), much greater emphasis is now being placed on how well such materials can resist the challenge of acids that are present in foods and drinks, or gastric contents that are regurgitated. This laboratory study compared the dissolution and behavior of five GIC materials (GC Fuji® VII, GC Fuji® Bulk, GC Fuji® IX Fast, Fuji® IX Extra and GC Equia® Forte Fil) when exposed to three acids (citric acid, phosphoric acid and lactic acid), versus ultrapure deionized water, which was used as a control. Discs of each material GIC were submerged in solutions and percentage weight changes over time determined. Subsequently, the GIC materials were also placed as a part of standardized Class II sandwich restorations in bovine teeth (n = 20), and submerged in the solutions, and the extent of GIC dissolution and protection of the adjacent tooth was scored. Weight loss increased with time and with acid concentration. Overall, the most soluble material was GC Fuji® IX Extra, while GC Fuji® IX Fast and GC Fuji® Bulk were less soluble, and the least soluble material was GC Equia® Forte Fil. The most destructive solution for both the discs and for GIC restorations in teeth was 10% citric acid, while the least destructive acid was 0.1% lactic acid. The more recent GIC materials GC Fuji® Bulk and GC Equia® Forte Fil showed increased acid resistance over the older GIC materials, and this further justifies their use in open sandwich Class II restorations in more hostile environments.

A Retrospective Study of the 3-Year Survival Rate of Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Cement Class II Restorations in Primary Molars

2016 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Webman ◽  
Ezat Mulki ◽  
Rosie Roldan ◽  
Oscar Arevalo ◽  
John F Roberts ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Survival Rate ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Radiographic Evaluation ◽  
Primary Molars ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Design Data ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Objective: To determine the three-year survival rate of Class II resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC), Vitremer, restorations in primary molars and to compare these results with measurements of survival of Class II restorations of standard restorative materials. Study Design: Data on Class II restorations placed in primary molars during a six-year period were collected through a chart review and radiographic evaluation in the office of a board-certified pediatric dentist. A radiograph showing that the restoration was intact was required at least 3 years after placement to qualify as successful. If no radiograph existed, the restoration was excluded. If the restoration was not found to be intact radiographically or was charted as having been replaced before three years it was recorded as a failure. The results of this study were then compared to other standard restorative materials using normalized annual failure rates. Results: Of the 1,231 Class II resinmodified glass-ionomer cement restorations placed over six years 427 met the inclusion criteria. There was a 97.42% survival rate for a 3-year period equivalent to an annual failure rate of 0.86%. Conclusions: A novel approach comparing materials showed that in this study Vitremer compared very favorably to previously published success rates of other standard restorative materials (amalgam, composite, stainless steel crown, compomer) and other RMGIC studies.

scholarly journals Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage in Class II Cavity in Primary Molars Restored With Glass Ionomer Cement, Zirconomer, and Cention N Using Stereomicroscope: An In Vitro Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-12
Author(s):  
Harshali P Patil ◽  
Jasmin J Winnier
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Occlusal Surface ◽  
Primary Molars ◽  
Blue Dye ◽  
Restorative Material ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Group I ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Background: Microleakage is defined as the passage of bacteria, fluid, molecules or ions between the cavity walls and restorative material. There are limited studies in the literature that have compared the microleakage of the newer restorative materials. Therefore, the aim of this study is to compare and evaluate microleakage in Class II cavity in primary molars restored with glass ionomer cement, zirconomer and cention N using stereomicroscope. Method: Standardized Class II cavities were prepared on the extracted primary molars All the prepared samples were divided into 3 experimental groups and were restored as follows: Group I- GIC (GC Universal Restorative); Group II- Zirconomer (SHOFU Inc., Kyoto, Japan) and Group III- Cention-N (Ivoclar Vivadent). The restored teeth were thermocycled, immersed in methylene blue dye and sectioned along the mesiodistal direction. The dye penetration at the occlusal surface and cervical surface was evaluated and compared using a stereo-microscope. Data was analysed using Krushal-Wallis test (Non-parametric ANOVA). Results: Among the three restorative materials, Cention N as compared to GIC and Zirconomer showed least microleakage at both the occlusal surface and cervical surface. Conclusion: Cention N a newer restorative material displayed lesser microleakage as compared to GIC and Zirconomer.

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.

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 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.

Antibacterial glass-ionomer cement restorative materials: A critical review on the current status of extended release formulations

2017 ◽  
Vol 262 ◽  
pp. 317-328 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tahereh Mohammadi Hafshejani ◽  
Ali Zamanian ◽  
Jayarama Reddy Venugopal ◽  
Zahra Rezvani ◽  
Farshid Sefat ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Critical Review ◽  
Extended Release ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Extended Release Formulations ◽  
Ionomer Cement

scholarly journals Proximal retention grooves may increase early fracture strength of ART restorations

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. Process
Author(s):  
Érica Fernandes ◽  
Maria Cristina Freitas ◽  
Paula Oltramani-Navarro ◽  
Ricardo Navarro ◽  
Rafael Menezes-Silva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fracture Resistance ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Test Machine ◽  
Retention Data ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Solution Ph ◽  
Nail Polish ◽  
Edta Solution ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Objective: To evaluate the fracture resistance (RF) of Class II Glass-ionomer Cement (GIC) ART restorations with and without proximal retentions. Material and Methods: 20 freshly extracted human molars were used. Forty (40) standard Mesial-Occlusal (MO) and Distal-Occlusal (DO) preparations (20 for each material) were performed with a 245 bur. The unprepared surfaces of the teeth were protected with nail polish and the specimens submerged in 0.5Mol EDTA solution, pH 7.4 for 8h under stirring. The preparations were finished with dentine spoons and 50% received proximal retention with # 3 excavators. 20 cavities were restored with Chemfil Rock (10 with retention and 10 without retention) and 20 cavities were restored with Equia Fil (10 with retention and 10 with no retention) and were stored in an oven at 37ºC and 100% relative humidity for 24h and submitted to axial compression loading in Test Machine - EMIC at a rate of 0.5 mm / minute, until restoration fracture occurred. The values were analyzed by two-way ANOVA (p<0.05). Results: ChemFil Rock presented 300.84 (69.20) (without retention) and 361.70 (81.08) (with retention) and Equia Fil showed 314.60 (69.97) (without retention) and 366.67 (103.38) (with retention). Data obtained with retention were statistically superior to those obtained with non-retained ART restorations (p=0.014). No statistical differences were detected between materials (p=0.761). Conclusion: Retentive grooves improved fracture resistance of Class II GIC ART restorations. KeywordsDental materials; ART; Glass ionomer cements.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document