Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC) Surface Hardness after Addition of 5% Silica from Sea Sand

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 ◽  
pp. 70-76
Author(s):  
Pocut Aya Sofya ◽  
Liana Rahmayani ◽  
Apriliadi Saputra
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Surface Hardness ◽  
High Hardness ◽  
Silica Content ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Hardness Tester ◽  
Sea Sand ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Glass ionomer cement (GIC) is a restorative material that can release flour so as to prevent further caries, biocompatible, translucent, and anti-bacterial, low tensile strength, GIC has limitations that is short working time and cannot be used in areas of teeth that have large masticatory pressure, susceptible to fracture toughness. The addition of silica in GIC is one aspect that needs to be considered because silica has high hardness properties. The source of silica can be synthesized from sea sand which has a silica content of about 98%. This study aims to determine the difference in surface hardness from conventional GIC and GIC by the addition of 5% silica from sea sand. Cylinder-shaped specimens with a diameter of 5 mm and height of 2 mm, totaling 10 specimens, namely 5 conventional type II GIC specimens (control group) and 5 conventional GIC specimens with the addition of silica from sea sand (treatment group). Vickers Hardness Tester is used to measure the value of hardness. Data were analyzed using SPSS with unpaired t test. The results of the data show that there was no significant difference (p> 0.05) between the surface hardness of conventional GIC and GIC with the addition of silica from sea sand.

scholarly journals PERBANDINGAN KEKERASAN BAHAN GLASS IONOMER CEMENT YANG DIRENDAM ANTARA OBAT KUMUR BERALKOHOL DENGAN OBAT KUMUR BEBAS ALKOHOL

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 98-105
Author(s):  
Farid Yuristiawan ◽  
Gunawan Gunawan ◽  
Detty Iryani
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Saliva ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Surface Hardness ◽  
Mean Value ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Filling Material ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Hardness Tester ◽  
Experimental Type ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Glass ionomer cement is one of the filling material that often used on the field of dentistry because it is relatively less expensive and mostly available. It’s existence in the mouth makes it susceptible to any substance that comes into mouth one of them is mouthwash which is a solution that used for many purposes such as antiseptic, astrigent, to prevent caries and bad breath. The aim of this research is to know the comparison of surface hardness of glass ionomer cement which soaked in alcohol containing mouthwash and alcohol-free mouthwash. This research is a laboratoric experimental type study. Sampels made from GC FUJI IX GP EXTRA for as much as 30 sampels were made and then soaked in artificial saliva  for the first 24 hours inside incubator which temperature and humidity were controlled. Sampels then divided into 3 groups. First group will be soaked in alcohol containing mouthwash, second group will be soaked alcohol-free mouthwash and control group will be soaked in artificial saliva for 6 hours inside incubator. Listerine is the mouthwash that was used on this research and surface hardness was examined using Vickers Hardness Tester. The result of this research  shows mean value for surface hardness of the first group is 16.36 VHN, 24.04 VHN for second group, and 43.60 VHN for control group. The result one way ANOVA with post hoc Bonferroni comparing test show significant results p = 0.00. In Conclusion there are significant differences of surface hardness between each groups, which surface hardness of the first group is lower than the second group, and both surface hardness of  the first and second group are lowered than control group (p = 0.00). Key words : Glass Ionomer Cement, Mouthwash, Surface Hardness

Antibacterial Activity of Triclosan Incorporated Glass Ionomer Cements – An in vitro Pilot Study

2010 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 157-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sajad Sainulabdeen ◽  
Prasanna Neelakantan ◽  
Sindhu Ramesh ◽  
CV Subbarao
Keyword(s):  
Antibacterial Activity ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Diffusion Method ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Group I ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Objectives: The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate the antibacterial activity of glass ionomer cement impregnated with different concentrations (0.5%, 1.25% and 2.5%) of a non releasing bactericide –Triclosan (TC) against two common cariogenic bacteria – Lactobacillus acidophilus and Streptococcus mutans; and to compare Triclosan incorporated GIC with chlorhexidine (CHX) incorporated GIC (2.5%)in terms of antibacterial activity. Methods: Chlorhexidine or Triclosan were added to glass ionomer cement powder to achieve 2.5% CHX – GIC (positive control – Group II), 0.5%, 1.25% and 2.5% TC-GIC (experimental groups III, IV and V respectively) formulations. Restorative glass ionomer cement (Fuji IX GC –Group I) served as negative control. The powder and liquid were mixed and inserted into the wells punched in agar plates (10mm × 4mm). The agar diffusion method was used to determine the antibacterial activity of the cements after 1, 7 and 30 days. Mean values were compared between different study groups using One-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD procedure at a significance level of 5%. Results: Triclosan incorporated GIC was more effective against L.acidophilus and S.mutans than Chlorhexidine incorporated GIC. Triclosan at a concentration of 2.5% was more effective than at lower concentrations. At all time periods studied, the maximum zone of inhibition against L.acidophilus was produced by Group V. Against S.mutans, on days 1,7 and 30, there was no significant difference between Groups II and IV (p>0.05), while the other groups showed significant differences. Conclusion: The use of triclosan as an antibacterial additive in GIC holds promise and further clinical research is needed in this direction.

scholarly journals Mechanical resistance of restored teeth with extensive crown damage

2009 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 72-77
Author(s):  
Ivan Sarcev ◽  
Branislava Petronijevic ◽  
Dubravka Markovic ◽  
Srecko Selakovic
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Properties ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Dental Amalgam ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Fracture Force ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Maxillary Premolars ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Introduction. Extensively damaged teeth can be restored by different core build-up materials. The aim of this study was to examine the mechanical properties of the restored maxillary premolars with composite resin, dental amalgam and glass ionomer cement (GIC) using compressive strength test. Materials and methods. Forty extracted intact human maxillary premolars were used in this study. Artificial defect in dentin was prepared using diamond bur up to the half of the anatomic crown of the tooth. After core build-up procedure, each tooth specimen was mounted in auto polymerizing acrylic resin blocks 2 mm below cement enamel junction and they were kept in distilled water at 37?C one day before testing. Then, they were placed in specially adapted devices at the angle of 183? to the longitudinal axis and subjected to a controlled load of 1 mm per minute. Results. Results showed that the best mechanical properties had samples restored with resin composite (492.5 N), then with amalgam (341.2 N) and glass ionomer cement (171.8 N). Comparing the fracture force using ANOVA, there was statistic significance between these groups (p<0.01). There were significant differences among control group and restored teeth with composite resin, amalgam and GIC. There was no significant difference in values of fracture forces between groups with composite resin and amalgam. The fracture force corresponding to the teeth restored with the GICs was significantly lower compared to the control group and the group with composite resin and amalgam. Conclusion. Satisfactory mechanical properties of restored premolars were obtained using composite resin and dental amalgam as a core build-up material.

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 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.

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.

scholarly journals Composites Associated with Pulp-Protection Material: Color-Stability Analysis after Accelerated Artificial Aging

2010 ◽  
Vol 04 (01) ◽  
pp. 006-011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diogo Rodrigues Cruvinel ◽  
Lucas da Fonseca Roberti Garcia ◽  
Simonides Consani ◽  
Fernanda de Carvalho Panzeri Pires-de-Souza
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Aging ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Color Stability ◽  
Color Variation ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Material Composite ◽  
Ionomer Cement ◽  
Material Concept

ABSTRACTObjectives: This study assessed the color stability of two composites associated with two pulp protectors submitted to accelerated artificial aging (AAA).Methods: 60 test specimens were made with 0.5 mm of protection material (calcium hydroxide - CH or glass ionomer cement - GIC) and 2.5 mm of restoration material (Concept or QuixFil) and divided into 3 groups (n=10) according to the type of protection material/composite, and the control group (no protection). After polishing, color readings were obtained with a spectrophotometer (PCB 6807 Byk Gardner) before and after AAA for 384 hours, and L*, a*, and b* coordinates and total color variation (ΔE) were analyzed (2-way ANOVA, Bonferroni, α=05).Results: Composites placed on CH presented lower L* levels than those on GIC, which presented higher L* values than the control group and lower b* values than those of the CH group. The Concept composite presented higher ΔE levels for all groups, differing statistically from QuixFil, except when placed on GIC.Conclusions: It was concluded that the protection material could affect the color stability and AAA is a factor that enhances this effect, depending on the type of composite used. (Eur J Dent 2010;4:6-11)

Surface Hardness Properties of Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cements and Polyacid-Modified Composite Resins

2004 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 42-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yusuf Ziya Bayindir ◽  
Mehmet Yildiz
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Water Storage ◽  
Surface Hardness ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Bottom Surface ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Hardness Values ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Abstract In this study the top and bottom surface hardness of two polyacid-modified composite resins (PMCRs), one resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC), and one composite resin were evaluated. The affect of water storage on their hardness was also investigated. The study was conducted using four different groups, each having five specimens obtained from fiberglass die molds with a diameter of 5 mm and a height of 2 mm. Measurements were made on the top and bottom surface of each specimen and recorded after 24 hours and again at 60 days. All tested materials showed different hardness values, and the values of top surfaces of the specimens were found to be higher than the bottom surface in all test groups. There was no statistical difference in the Vickers hardness (HV) values when the test specimens were kept in water storage. In conclusion Hytac displayed microhardness values higher than Vitremer and Dyract. We found the order of HV values to be Surfil > Hytac > Dyract > Vitremer, respectively. Vitremer presented the lowest microhardness level and Surfil the highest. Citation Bayindir YZ, Yildiz M. Surface Hardness Properties of Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cements and Polyacid-Modified Composite Resins. J Contemp Dent Pract 2004 November;(5)4:042-049.

In Vitro Effect of Simulated Tooth Brushing and Children’s Mouth Rinses on Physical Properties of Glass Ionomer Cement

2020 ◽  
Vol 44 (5) ◽  
pp. 342-347
Author(s):  
Natyla ML Silva ◽  
Victor G Costa ◽  
Letícia M Gonçalves ◽  
Isabella A Gomes ◽  
Marco Aurélio B Paschoal
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Tooth Brushing ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Intergroup Comparison ◽  
Vitro Effect ◽  
Dependent Samples ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Objective: The present study investigated the erosive potential of children’s mouthrinses on glass ionomer cement (GIC) samples after simulated toothbrushing. Study design: Forty round-shaped samples of GIC were divided into 3 groups: G1- cetylpyridinium chloride, G2- xylitol and triclosan and G3–Malva sylvestris and xylitol and G4–distilled water as a control group. Prior to the main tests, the samples were submitted to the surface roughness measurement (Ra) and weight analysis (W). Afterward, they were brushed twice day (2× / day) for 15 days and immersed in mouthrinses after the last daily brushing. The final surface roughness (R2) and weight (W2) were determined after completing the tooth brushing-mouth rinsing cycles and the real increase in roughness (ΔRa) and real weight loss (ΔW) were calculated. In addition, stereoscopic images taken at 30× magnification. The data was analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey-test post hoc tests for intergroup comparison and the T-test for dependent samples (α = 0.05). Results: Only group G2 showed increased in roughness ΔRa (1.53 ± 0.94) whereas ΔW values were not significant. However, evident cracks and voids were verified for all tested children’s rinses. Conclusion: Thus, children’s mouthrinse containing xylitol / triclosan increased the GIC roughness, especially when associated with brushing.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document