Effect of CO2 laser on the inhibition of root surface caries adjacent to glass ionomer cement or composite resin restorations - in vitro Study

2012 ◽  
pp. S209-.
Author(s):  
WC Souza-Zaroni ◽  
BR Zancope ◽  
LC Daniel ◽  
FC Araujo ◽  
FS Hanashiro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Co2 Laser ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Root Surface ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Root Surface Caries ◽  
Ionomer Cement

A Fluoride-containing Composite Resin—An In Vitro Study of a New Material for Orthodontic Bonding

1989 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 207-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. A. Cook ◽  
C. C. Youngson
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
The Other ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
New Material ◽  
Bond Strengths ◽  
Ionomer Cement

The shear/peel bond strength of a new material, a ‘hybrid’ of a composite resin and a glass ionomer cement, was compared in vitro with the bond strengths of a composite resin and of a glass ionomer cement. The new material had a significantly greater bond strength than the other materials tested and its properties were very similar to the composite resin. Unlike the glass ionomer cement, etching of the enamel before applying the adhesive is required. The clinical indications for using this new cement are discussed.

An in vitro Study of the Bond Strength of a Glass Ionomer Cement in the Direct Bonding of Orthodontic Brackets

1988 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 247-253 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. A Cook ◽  
C. C. Youngson
Keyword(s):  
Phosphoric Acid ◽  
Bond Strength ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Tooth Surface ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Pre Treatment ◽  
Ionomer Cement

The shear/peel bond strength of a ‘no-mix’ composite orthodontic bonding resin was compared in vitro with that of a glass ionomer cement. The effect of pre-treatment of the enamel, with either phosphoric acid or polyacrylic acid, prior to using the glass ionomer cement was also assessed. The composite resin had a significantly higher bond strength than the glass ionomer cement. Simple prophylaxis and drying of the enamel achieved the best results when using the glass ionomer cement, whilst etching the tooth surface with phosphoric acid produced a significantly poorer bond to the enamel. Investigation of the site of failure showed the composite resin bonded very well to the tooth and less well to the bracket, whilst the glass ionomer adhered significantly better to the bracket base than to the tooth surface.

scholarly journals Cuspal Deflection in Premolar Teeth Restored Using Current Composite Resins With and Without Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Liner

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 282-289 ◽  
Author(s):  
E Karaman ◽  
G Ozgunaltay
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Ionomer Cement

SUMMARY Aim: To evaluate the effects of four different types of composite resins and a resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) liner on the cuspal deflection of large MOD cavities in vitro. Materials & Methods: One hundred twenty-eight extracted human upper premolar teeth were used. After the teeth were divided into eight groups (n=16), standardized large MOD cavities were prepared. The distance between cusp tips was measured before and after the cavity preparations with a digital micrometer. Then the teeth were restored with different resin composites (Filtek Supreme XT, Filtek P60, Filtek Z250, Filtek Silorane - 3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA) with and without a RMGIC liner (Vitrebond, 3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA). Cuspal deflection was measured 5 min, 24 h, and 48 h after the completion of restorations. The data were statistically analyzed with Friedman and Kruskal Wallis tests. Results: A significant reduction in cuspal deflection was observed in Filtek Silorane restorations with and without RMGIC liner (p<0.05). In all restored teeth, the distance between cusps was reduced but they did not return to their original positions during the 48 h period. All teeth showed cuspal deflection, but placement of RMGIC liner reduced it. Conclusion: The use of silorane-based composites and the placement of RMGIC liner under the composite resin restorations resulted in significantly reduced cuspal deflection.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document