Microhardness and chemical analysis of high-viscous glass-ionomer cement after 10 years of clinical service as ART restorations

Zanata, Régia Luzia; Magalhães, Ana Carolina; Lauris, José Roberto Pereira; Atta, Maria Teresa; Wang, Linda; Navarro, Maria Fidela de Lima

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2011.09.003

Cited by 27 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A significant increase in microhardness was reported in GIC up to the 180‐day period; from that point, the values stabilized (Zanata et al ., ). In the present study, a longer aging procedure might be affecting the results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Fracture strength of restorations in proximal cavities of primary molars

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary: This study evaluated the fracture strength of various restorative materials for primary molars in dovetail and box-only class II cavity designs. Eighty extracted noncarious human primary molars were used. The teeth were randomly divided into two groups for either dovetail or box-only preparations. The teeth were then divided into four subgroups for each restorative material: glass ionomer cement (GIC), resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC), compomer, and composite. The restorations were tested for fracture strength. The loads at fracture and fracture mode were recorded and a scanning electron microscopy analysis was performed to observe the micromorphology of the borders between the teeth and the materials. The nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-tests were used. Although there were significant differences between the restorative materials (p < 0.05), there were no differences between the fracture strength of the box-only and the dovetail cavity designs in any of the groups (p > 0.05) except the composite group. The fracture strength of the compomer and composite groups was significantly higher than that of the GIC and RMGIC groups (p < 0.05). A class II cavity could be selected as dovetail or box-only and compomer and composite are more resistant to fracture than GIC and RMGIC. SCANNING 38:43-49, 2016.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Fracture strength of restorations in proximal cavities of primary molars

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another difference is that many ageing processes do not occur at the same time in the lab test, and so further clinical research is required. 32 As is well known, temperature accelerates oxidationreduction reactions within the internal structure of silicone elastomers. The internal facial epitheses may produce deformation and heat during chewing, swallowing and laughing, which can further promote the ageing of the silicone elastomer.…”

Section: Ageingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomechanical properties of nano-TiO2 addition to a medical silicone elastomer: The effect of artificial ageing

Wang

Liu

Jing

et al. 2014

Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The efficacy of Atraumatic Restorative Treatment has been supported by studies that evaluated the clinical success of the restorations [12][13][14][15], granting it the nature of definitive treatment [16]. Therefore, it has become an important tool for dental treatment in countries facing a scarcity of resources [17].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surface Hardness of Glass Ionomer Cements used in Atraumatic Restorative Treatment

Barbosa¹,

Lopes²,

Lima³

et al. 2016

Pesqui. bras. odontopediatria clín. integr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the surface hardness of a national glass ionomer cement with increased powder / liquid ratio, suitable for the atraumatic restorative treatment technique. Material and Methods: This is a study of the quantitative experimental type, in which 30 specimens were made and divided equally into 03 experimental groups (glass ionomer cement restorative Vitro Molar -DFL in the proportion specified by the manufacturer; glass ionomer cement restorative Vitro molar ratio -DFL modified with incorporation of 50% powder; and Gold Label 9 -GC Corporation in the proportion specified by the manufacturer). After handling, the materials were placed in a Teflon mold for manufacturing the cylindrical samples (5mm x 2 mm), with the aid of a Centrix syringe (Centrix, Shelton, CT, USA). Specimens were stored in liquid petroleum jelly at a temperature 37 ° ± 1 for up to 7 days. The specimens were evaluated by Vickers hardness test at time intervals of 24 hours and 7 days after manufacture. The data were subjected to the Independent Student's-t tests and analysis of variance (ANOVA), and subsequently by Tukey's test at 95% level of significance. Results: The setting time positively influenced the hardness of the two glass ionomer cements (p<0,001). Cement Gold Label 9 showed higher hardness values than cement Vitro Molar (p<0,001), irrespective of the evaluation time interval. The latter in turn, showed improved values when manipulated with the modified powder / liquid ratio (3: 2) (p<0,001). Conclusion: Vitro Molar glass ionomer cement showed higher hardness values when manipulated with the modified powder/liquid ratio.

show abstract

Microhardness and chemical analysis of high-viscous glass-ionomer cement after 10 years of clinical service as ART restorations

Abstract: KHN values of ten-year HVGIC specimens were similar to the control group values at 180-day storage period. Except for one 10-year specimen in that an altered layer could be seen, chemical composition was similar amongst the depths evaluated.

Cited by 27 publications

References 31 publications

Fracture strength of restorations in proximal cavities of primary molars

Fracture strength of restorations in proximal cavities of primary molars

Biomechanical properties of nano-TiO2 addition to a medical silicone elastomer: The effect of artificial ageing

Surface Hardness of Glass Ionomer Cements used in Atraumatic Restorative Treatment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About