Clinical evaluations of resin-modified glass-ionomer restorations

Sidhu, Sharanbir K.

doi:10.1016/j.dental.2009.08.015

Cited by 86 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…37 Similarly, consideration should perhaps be given to using RMGI more frequently in the restoration of NCCLs, as other studies have also shown high retention rates in comparison to other materials. 38,39 Occlusal factors are considered by many to be important in the aetiology of NCCLs [40][41][42] and in the success of restorations. 30 The use of low-modulus materials is also recommended by some to prevent detachment of adhesive restorations resulting from tooth flexure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The survival of Class V restorations in general dental practice: part 3, five-year survival

Stewardson

Creanor

Thornley³

et al. 2012

Br Dent J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The survival of Class V restorations in general dental practice: part 3, five-year survival

Stewardson

Creanor

Thornley³

et al. 2012

Br Dent J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This unexpected result suggests that RMGIC residuals that are invisible to the eye at clinical magnification may still exist on the enamel surface after cleaning. Coupled with the unfavorable color stability of RMGIC, 31 these residuals may lead to clinically unacceptable discoloration values as observed herein. Further studies using elemental analysis should be carried out to confirm this assumption.…”

mentioning

confidence: 85%

Effects of different orthodontic adhesives and resin removal techniques on enamel color alteration

Boncuk¹,

Çehrelį

Polat-Özsoy

2014

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To investigate the color alterations in enamel following the use of different orthodontic bonding resins and adhesive residue-removal burs. Materials and Methods: Metal brackets were bonded to extracted human premolars (n 5 175) by using an etch-and-rinse adhesive system, a self-etch adhesive system (SEP), or a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC). After 24 hours of photoaging, the brackets were removed and the adhesive residue on the tooth surfaces was cleaned with either a tungsten carbide bur or a Stainbuster bur. Tooth colors were measured with a spectrophotometer at baseline, after adhesive removal, and after additional photoaging. Color evaluation was made, and color differences induced by photoaging were calculated. Statistical evaluation was made using the Kruskal-Wallis test and the Mann-Whitney U-test, with Bonferroni correction. Results: All specimens showed discoloration at varying levels. The highest color change was observed in the etch-and-rinse adhesive/tungsten carbide bur group. When the etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives were used, adhesive-remnant removal with Stainbuster burs resulted in significantly lower discoloration. The type of bur did not affect the extent of enamel discoloration in the RMGIC group. Conclusions: Orthodontic treatment alters the original color of enamel, and both the adhesive system and the resin-removal methods are responsible for this change. When brackets are bonded with the etch-and-rinse system or the SEP, cleaning the adhesive residuals with Stainbuster burs is recommended for minimal change. RMGIC can be safely cleaned with tungsten carbide burs. (Angle Orthod. 2014;84:634-641.)

show abstract

“…Cohesive failure through GIC has been reported to be the predominant failure mode in shear testing of GICs 6) . With the introduction of resinmodified (RM) GIC, moisture sensitivity and low physical properties have been improved, thereby leading to good clinical performance 7) . Bond strengths between RMGIC and resin composite are a combination of chemical and mechanical bonding, although the true contribution of chemical bonding has not been clearly determined.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of surface treatment of glass-ionomers on surface free energy and bond strength of resin composite

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of surface treatment of glass-ionomer (GIC) on bond strength of resin composite and surface free energies. Specimens were prepared and divided into three groups as follows: without pretreatment (control), phosphoric acid etching, and air-abrasion. Adhesive was applied and resin composite was bonded. For conventional GIC, acid etching or air-abrasion increased bond strength (8.5-8.8 MPa) when compared with controls (4.7 MPa); however, RMGIC resulted in significantly lower bond strengths (10.3-15.8 MPa) than in controls (14.2-20.5 MPa). The value of the γ S − component increased when conventional GIC was treated with phosphoric acid or air-abrasion (60.1-60.5 mJ•m −2 ) when compared with controls (52.8 mJ•m -2 ). These results indicate that surface treatment of conventional GIC promoted higher bond strength to resin composite and higher Lewis-base components, but decreased bond strength for RMGIC.

show abstract

Clinical evaluations of resin-modified glass-ionomer restorations

Cited by 86 publications

References 8 publications

The survival of Class V restorations in general dental practice: part 3, five-year survival

The survival of Class V restorations in general dental practice: part 3, five-year survival

Effects of different orthodontic adhesives and resin removal techniques on enamel color alteration

Influence of surface treatment of glass-ionomers on surface free energy and bond strength of resin composite

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About