scholarly journals Evaluation of the Clinical Behavior of Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement on Primary Molars: A Comparative One-year Study

2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 130-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. R. Prabhaker ◽  
O. S. Raju ◽  
Ameet J. Kurthukoti ◽  
V. Satish
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Class I ◽  
Primary Molars ◽  
Lateral Side ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Clinical Behavior ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
One Year ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Abstract Aim The objectives of the present study were to evaluate and compare the clinical behavior of resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) on primary molars with conventional and modified cavity preparations. Methods and Materials Forty-two children, 5-9 years of age, having bilateral initial occlusal caries on the mandibular primary second molars were selected for the study. A split mouth design was employed where conventional Class I cavities with a 90° cavosurface angle were prepared randomly on primary second molars on one side and modified cavities with a 1 mm straight bevel along the cavosurface margin on the contra-lateral side. These cavities were restored with RMGIC. The restorations were evaluated during subsequent visits, for a period of one year. Results At the end of one year, 90% of the restorations survived in the conventional cavity group whereas 100% of the restorations survived in the modified cavity group. Conclusion Incorporation of a bevel in Class I cavities increases the survival rate of RMGIC restorations. There was no significant difference in the clinical behavior between the two groups. However, beveling does contribute to long term clinical success of these restorations. Clinical Significance Incorporation of a straight bevel in conventional cavities will improve the retention of RMGIC by increasing the bonding area and enhancing the desired properties of the material. Citation Prabhakar AR, Raju OS, Kurthukoti AJ, Satish V. Evaluation of the Clinical Behavior of Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement on Primary Molars: A Comparative One-year Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008 February;(9)2:130-137.

A One-Year Clinical Evaluation of a High-Viscosity Glass Ionomer Cement in Primary Molars

2006 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yucel Yilmaz ◽  
Özge Eyuboglu ◽  
Mutlu Elcin Kocogullari ◽  
Nihal Belduz
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Evaluation ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
High Viscosity ◽  
Class I ◽  
Primary Molars ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
One Year ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Abstract In this study one-year clinical results of high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (GIC) (Fuji IX, A3, GC, Japan) were determined in class I and class II restorations in 68 primary molars with occlusal or approximal caries. Following caries removal and cavity preparation, the teeth were restored with Fuji IX. The restorations were evaluated according to the U.S. Public Health Service's (USPHS) criteria at the end of one year. Statistical analyses of the data obtained were analyzed using the X2 test. The evaluations showed no statistically significant difference between class I and class II restorations in terms of the color mismatch, anatomic form, marginal adaptation, and secondary caries (P>0.05), but they were statistically significant with regard to cavosurface marginal discoloration (P<0.05). At the end of one year, the success rate of the class I and class II restorations of the primary molars restored with Fuji IX was 94%. Citation Yilmaz Y, Eyuboglu Ö, Kocogullari ME, Belduz M. A One-Year Clinical Evaluation of a High-Viscosity Glass Ionomer Cement in Primary Molars. J Contemp Dent Pract 2006 February;(7)1:071-078.

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 Glass Ionomer Cements can be used for Bonding Orthodontic Brackets After Cancer Radiation Treatment?

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 128-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriela Cristina Santin ◽  
Alexandra Mussolino de Queiroz ◽  
Regina Guenka Palma-Dibb ◽  
Harley Francisco de Oliveira ◽  
Paulo Nelson Filho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Enamel Surface ◽  
Orthodontic Brackets ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Clinical Practices ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Abstract Patients undergoing radiotherapy treatment present more susceptibility to dental caries and the use of an orthodontic device increases this risk factor due to biofilm accumulation around the brackets. The objective of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength to irradiated permanent teeth of orthodontic brackets bonded with conventional glass ionomer cement and resin-modified glass ionomer cement due to the fluoride release capacity of these materials. Ninety prepared human premolars were divided into 6 groups (n=15), according to the bonding material and use or not of radiation: CR: Transbond XT composite resin; RMGIC: Fuji Ortho LC conventional glass ionomer cement; GIC: Ketac Cem Easymix resin-modified glass ionomer cement. The groups were irradiated (I) or non-irradiated (NI) prior to bracket bonding. The specimens were subjected to a fractioned radiation dose of 2 Gy over 5 consecutive days for 6 weeks. After the radiotherapy, the brackets were bonded on the specimens with Transbond XT, Fuji Ortho LC and Ketac Cem Easymix. After 24 h, the specimens were subjected to shear bond strength test. The image of enamel surface (classified by Adhesive Remnant Index - ARI) was also evaluated and its frequency was checked among groups/subgroups. The shear bond strength variable was evaluated with ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc test. GIC group showed the lowest adhesion values among the groups (p<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference among non-irradiated and irradiated groups (p>0.05). As for the ARI, the CR-I group showed the highest material retention on enamel surface among the irradiated groups. RMGIC group showed the highest values for shear bond strength and presented ARI acceptable for clinical practices.

scholarly journals Microleakage after Thermocycling of Three Self-Etch Adhesives under Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Cement Restorations

2010 ◽  
Vol 2010 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabine O. Geerts ◽  
Laurence Seidel ◽  
Adelin I. Albert ◽  
Audrey M. Gueders
Keyword(s):  
Polyacrylic Acid ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Class V ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
One Step ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Ionomer Cement

This study was designed to evaluate microleakage that appeared on Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Cement (RMGIC) restorations. Sixty class V cavities () were cut on thirty extracted third molars, which were randomly allocated to three experimental groups. All the buccal cavities were pretreated with polyacrylic acid, whereas the lingual cavities were treated with three one-step Self-Etch adhesives, respectively, Xeno III (Dentsply Detrey GmbH, Konstanz, Germany), iBond exp (Heraeus Kulzer gmbH & Co. KG, Hanau, Germany), and Adper Prompt-L-Pop (3M ESPE AG, Dental products Seefeld, Germany). All cavities were completely filled with RMGIC, teeth were thermocycled for 800 cycles, and leakage was evaluated. Results were expressed as means standard deviations (SDs). Microleakage scores were analysed by means of generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) assuming an ordinal logistic link function. All results were considered to be significant at the 5% critical level (). The results showed that bonding RMGIC to dentin with a Self-Etch adhesive rather than using polyacrylic acid did not influence microleakage scores (), except for one tested Self-Etch adhesive, namely, Xeno III (). Nevertheless, our results did not show any significant difference between the three tested Self-Etch adhesive systems. In conclusion, the pretreatment of dentin with Self-Etch adhesive system, before RMGIC filling, seems to be an alternative to the conventional Dentin Conditioner for the clinicians as suggested by our results (thermocycling) and others (microtensile tests).

scholarly journals Effect of cement types on the tensile strength of metallic crowns submitted to thermocycling

2003 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 193-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simonides Consani ◽  
Julie Guzela dos Santos ◽  
Lourenço Correr Sobrinho ◽  
Mário Alexandre Coelho Sinhoreti ◽  
Manoel Damião Sousa-Neto
Keyword(s):  
Tensile Strength ◽  
Zinc Phosphate ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Tensile Load ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Ionomer Cement

The relationship between metallic cast crowns and tensile strength according to cement types submitted to thermocycling was studied. Seventy-two metallic crowns were cast with Verabond II Ni-Cr alloy and cemented in standardized preparations with 10º tapering. Three types of finishing line (45-degree chamfered, 20-degree bevel shoulder and right shoulder) were made with diamond burs on bovine teeth. Twenty-four metallic crowns in each group were randomly subdivided into three subgroups of 8 samples each according to the cement used: SS White zinc phosphate cement, Vitremer resin-modified glass ionomer cement, and Rely X resin cement and were submitted to thermocycling. Retention was evaluated according to tensile load required to displace the metallic cast crowns from tooth preparations with an Instron testing machine. ANOVA and Tukey's test showed a statistically significant difference among luting materials, with greater results for Rely X resin cement (24.9 kgf) followed by SS White zinc phosphate cement (13.3 kgf) and Vitremer resin-modified glass ionomer cement (10.1 kgf). The finishing line types did not influence the tensile resistance of the crowns fixed with the three cements. Increased tensile resistance of metallic crowns fixed on bovine teeth was obtained with resin cement, independent of the finishing line types.

scholarly journals Shear Bond Strength of Self-Adhesive Flowable Composite, Conventional Flowable Composite and Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement to Primary Dentin

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kiana Poorzandpoush ◽  
Mehdi Shahrabi ◽  
Alireza Heidari ◽  
Zohre Sadat Hosseinipour
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Adhesive Failure ◽  
Flowable Composite ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Group 3 ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Objectives: This study aimed to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of self-adhesive and conventional flowable composites and resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC) to primary dentin. Materials and Methods: In this in vitro, experimental study, the buccal surface of 48 primary canine and first molar teeth was longitudinally sectioned to expose dentin. The teeth were randomly divided into three groups (n=16) of 37.5% phosphoric acid+ OptiBond+ Premise Flow composite (group 1), Vertise Flow composite (group 2) and RMGIC (group 3). A plastic cylindrical mold was placed on the exposed dentin and filled with restorative materials. The samples were then immersed in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours, subjected to 1000 thermal cycles between 5-55°C and underwent SBS test. The mode of failure was determined under a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test. Results: A significant difference was noted in SBS of the groups (P<0.05). The SBS of conventional flowable composite was significantly higher that of RMGIC and self-adhesive flowable composite (P<0.05). The difference in SBS of RMGIC and self-adhesive flowable composite was not significant (P>0.05). Failure at the dentin-restoration interface (adhesive failure) had the highest frequency in groups 1 and 2. The frequency of adhesive failure was 100% in group 3. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, the conventional flowable composite yielded the highest SBS to primary dentin. Self-adhesive flowable composite and RMGIC showed the lowest SBS with no significant difference with each other.

Comparative evaluation of compressive strength of esthetic restorative materials

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 24
Author(s):  
Dr. Sazan Sherdil Saleem
Keyword(s):  
Compressive Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Group Iii ◽  
Group I ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Ionomer Cement

The present study was aimed to evaluate and compare the compressive strength ofconventional glass ionomer cement with resin modified glass ionomer, compomer andmicrohybrid composite. A total of 40 specimens of esthetic restorative materials werefabricated using customized cylindrical teflon mould measuring 6mm height and 4mmdiameter and were grouped with ten specimens in each group, Group I: Conventionalglass ionomer cement (Fuji II). Group II: Resin modified glass ionomer (Fuji II LC).Group III: Compomer (Dyract AP) and Group IV: Microhybrid composite resin(Tetric Ceram).They were covered with Mylar strip and were cured using LED lightcuring unit. Compressive strength was evaluated using Universal testing machine. Theresult showed that there were a significant difference among the groups in whichTetric Ceram showed highest compressive strength and Fuji II showed the leastcompressive strength

scholarly journals Influence of thicknesses of smear layer on the transdentinal cytotoxicity and bond strength of a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 379-386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adriano Augusto Melo de Mendonça ◽  
Camila Fávero de Oliveira ◽  
Josimeri Hebling ◽  
Carlos Alberto de Souza Costa
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Cell Metabolism ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Smear Layer ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Ionomer Cement

This study evaluated the transdentinal cytotoxicity (TC) and the bond strength (BS) of a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC) applied to dentin covered with smear layer (SL) of different thicknesses. Forty dentin discs had thick (TSL) or thin (THSL) smear layer created on their occlusal side. In artificial pulp chambers, MDPC-23 cells were seeded on the pulpal side of the dentin discs and divided into five groups: G1TC: no treatment (control); G2TC: TSL + RMGIC; G3TC: THSL + RMGIC; G4TC: TSL removal + RMGIC; G5TC: THSL removal + RMGIC. After 24 h, cell metabolism and morphology were evaluated by the methyltetrazolium (MTT) assay and by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), respectively. For BS, the following groups were determined: G1BS: TSL removal + RMGIC; G2BS: THSL removal + RMGIC; G3BS: TSL + RMGIC; G4BS: THSL + RMGIC. Shear bond strength was tested to failure in a mechanical testing machine MTS (0.5 mm/min). Statistically significant difference was observed only between the control and experimental groups (Kruskal-Wallis, p<0.05). The metabolic activity of the viable MDPC-23 cells in G2TC, G3TC, G4TC and G5TC decreased by 54.85%, 60.79%, 64.12% and 62.51%, respectively. Mean shear bond strength values for G1BS, G2BS, G3BS and G4BS were 7.5, 7.4, 6.4 and 6.7 MPa, respectively, without significant difference among them (ANOVA, p>0.05). RMGIC presented moderate transdentinal cytotoxic effects. Maintenance or removal of smear layer did not affect the bond strength of RMGIC to dentin substrate.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document