scholarly journals Effects of Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement and Flowable Bulk-fill Base on the Fracture Resistance of Class II Restorations: An Original Laboratory Experimental Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 342-348
Author(s):  
Hend N Al-Nahedh
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Study ◽  
Fracture Resistance ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Original Laboratory ◽  
Ionomer Cement

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 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.

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.

Two-Year Clinical Evaluation of Three Restorative Materials in Primary Molars

2009 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maha Daou ◽  
Bruno Tavernier ◽  
Jean-Marc Meyer
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Class I ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
High Caries Risk ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Amalgam Restorations ◽  
Ionomer Cement

A variety of alternatives to amalgam are now available for use in Class I and Class II restorations in primary teeth, including glass ionomer cements, compomers and resin modified glass ionomer cements(RMGIC). Objectives: This study evaluated the two-year clinical performance of three restorative dental materials: A resin modified glass ionomer cement (Fuji IILC), a compomer (Dyract AP) and a high viscosity glass ionomer cement (Fuji IX), in primary molars of pediatric patients with high caries risk activity and compared these results to those reported for amalgam restorations. Study design: One hundred and forty nine Class I and Class II cavities in 45 patients aged 6 to 8 years were restored with compomer, glass ionomer cements and amalgam. Restorations were evaluated according to modified Ryge criteria by two examiners at baseline, and after 6, 12, 18 and 24 months of oral function. The data was submitted to statistical analysis (binomial and hyper geometric tests, p&lt;0.05). Results: Two-year recall rate was 62.42%. Class I performed better than class II restorations. The difference in marginal discoloration between compomer and amalgam restorations was statistically significant (p=0.014). No other significant differences were found between GIC, compomer and amalgam restorations. The clinical performance of the three restorative materials compared to amalgam in Class I and Class II cavities at two-year recall was acceptable.Conclusions: The results, even in a population with high caries risk activity, suggest that these materials are suitable alternatives to amalgam in Class I and Class II restorations in primary teeth.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document