The optimisation of the initial viscosity of an encapsulated glass-ionomer restorative following different mechanical mixing regimes

Fleming, Garry J.P.; Kenny, Sinéad; Barralet, Jake E.

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2005.05.008

Cited by 31 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Of these, half of the failures were related to the physical properties of the cement used and its manipulation by the operators. The presence of pores also makes the material more friable 26,27 . In order to minimise the effects of porosity, one can use the ultrasonic excitement during the initial setting of the material, thus decreasing number, size and amount of pores.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of chlorhexidine gluconate on porosity and compressive strength of a glass ionomer cement

Marti

Azevedo

Mata

et al. 2014

Rev. odontol. UNESP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ResumoIntrodução: Por apresentar ampla atividade antibacteriana, a clorexidina (CHX) tem sido amplamente utilizada em odontologia, podendo ser facilmente incorporada ao cimento de ionômero de vidro (CIV) e liberada consequentemente na cavidade bucal. Objetivo: O objetivo neste estudo foi avaliar a porosidade e resistência à compressão de um CIV, ao qual foi adicionado diferentes concentrações de CHX. Material e método: Os espécimes foram preparados com CIV (Ketac Molar Esaymix) e divididos em 4 grupos de acordo com a concentração de CHX: controle, 0,5% e 1% e 2% (n=10). Para análise dos poros os espécimes foram fraturados com auxílio de martelo e cinzel cirúrgicos, de modo que a fratura era realizada no centro do corpo de prova, dividindo-o ao meio e as imagens obtidas no microscópio eletrônico de varredura (MEV) analisadas no software Image J. O teste de resistência à compressão foi realizado na máquina de ensaios mecânicos (EMIC -Equipamentos e Sistemas de Ensaios Ltda, São José dos Pinhais, PR, Brazil). A análise estatística foi realizada por ANOVA, complementada pelo teste de Tukey. Nível de significância adotado de 5%. Resultado: Não se observou alteração estatisticamente significante entre os grupos estudados tanto para o número de poros quanto para a resistência à compressão. Conclusão: O uso de CIV associado ao gluconato de CLX a 1% e 2% é a melhor opção para ser utilizada na clínica odontológica. Descritores: Cimentos de ionômeros de vidro; clorexidina; porosidade. AbstractIntroduction: For presenting wide antibacterial activity, chlorhexidine (CHX) has been extensively used in dentistry and can be easily incorporated into the glass ionomer cement (GIC) and consequently released into the oral cavity. Aim: The aim of this study was porosity and compression strength of a GIC, that was added to different concentrations of CHX. Material and method: Specimens were prepared with GIC (Ketac Molar Esaymix) and divided into 4 groups according to the concentration of CHX: control, 0.5% and 1% and 2% (n = 10). For analysis of pores specimens were fractured with the aid of hammer and chisel surgical, so that the fracture was performed in the center of the specimens, dividing it in half and images were obtained from a scanning electron microscope (SEM) analyzed in Image J software. The compressive strength test was conducted in a mechanical testing machine (EMIC -Equipment and Testing Systems Ltd., Joseph of the Pines, PR, Brazil). Statistical analysis was performed by ANOVA, Tukey test. Significance level of 5%. Result: No statistically significant changes between the study groups was observed both for the number of pores as well as for the compressive strength. Conclusion: The use of GIC associated with CHX gluconate 1% and 2% is the best option to be used in dental practice.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of chlorhexidine gluconate on porosity and compressive strength of a glass ionomer cement

Marti

Azevedo

Mata

et al. 2014

Rev. odontol. UNESP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The current study examines whether such variability is systemic to the CFS test for powder/liquid acid-base cements or is a reflection of widespread inadequate control in experimental execution. GI restoratives are brittle materials [40] such that a distribution of CFSs is inevitable [41] given the likelihood of pore inclusion during restorative mixing or placement into the mould [22][23][24]37]. It has been suggested that a minimum of 20 nominally identical specimens is required to determine statistically significant differences when assessing the CFS of brittle dental materials [42] although higher sample sizes (n=60) have also been advocated for ceramics [43].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Encapsulated GI restoratives were employed in the current study as they offer significant advantages over their hand-mixed equivalents [20][21], by eliminating operator induced variability in the powder to liquid mixing ratios [22] and by standardising the mixing regime [20][21][23][24]. M a n u s c r i p t Prior to the commencement of testing, each operator manufactured and tested ten preliminary batches of five specimens to learn the specimen preparation technique.…”

Section: Page 6 Of 26mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the current statistical analysis the differences in the CFS data between the three GI restoratives was not of interest, as the reported CFS for GI restoratives vary in accordance with the dental literature [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]. As a result, the CFS data for each GI restorative was analysed individually, using three three-way ANOVAs (operator × mixing regime × batch) such that differences between the materials would not influence the analyses.…”

Section: Statistical Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…During this time only a limited number of investigators have adopted alternative and potentially more valid strength determination methods for GIs in which the failure mode is reproducible [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. In contrast, a significant body of evidence has been presented for GIs [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] which could account for the lack of reliability of the CFS test method observed in the 1990 test-house variability study [8]. It has been demonstrated that the proportioning of constituents [20][21][22]24,[37][38], mixing technique [20][21][23][24] and mould design [20][21][22][23][24][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The crushing truth about glass ionomer restoratives: Exposing the standard of the standard

Fleming

Dowling

Addison

2012

Journal of Dentistry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The compressive fracture strength (CFS) test is the only strength test for glass ionomers (GIs) in ISO 9917-1: 2003. The CFS test was the subject of much controversy in 1990 and has been challenged over its appropriateness and reproducibility and the study aimed to revisit the suitability of the CFS test for GIs. Methods: Groups of 20 (four batches of n=5) cylinders (6.0±0.1 mm height, 4.0 ±0.1 mm diameter) of three encapsulated GIs were prepared for CFS testing using two mechanical mixing regimes and two operators. The CFS data for each GI restorative were pooled, three-, two-and one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted (p=0.05) for operator, mixing regime and batch to assess reliability. The data was also analysed according to ISO 9917-1: 2003. Results: The three-way ANOVAs showed a significant interaction of operator × mixing regime × batch (p<0.017) for two of the three encapsulated GIs. However, no significant effects of operator × mixing regime (p>0.042), operator × batch (p>0.332), mixing regime × batch (p>0.056), operator (p>0.094), mixing regime (p>0.118) or batch (p>0.054) were evident. When examined in batches of five (or ten where appropriate) as specified in ISO 9917-1: 2003, inter-and intra-operator variability were evident. Conclusions: The use of batch-censoring in accordance with ISO 9917-1: 2003 is unsafe when the data scatter reflects a homogenous flaw distribution as it misidentifies operative variability. Despite demonstrating that the CFS test can be performed reliably, the validity of the CFS test for GIs remains under scrutiny.

show abstract

Effect of ultrasonic excitation on the porosity of glass ionomer cement: A scanning electron microscope evaluation

Coldebella

Pinto

Zuanon

2010

Microscopy Res & Technique

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The optimisation of the initial viscosity of an encapsulated glass-ionomer restorative following different mechanical mixing regimes

Cited by 31 publications

References 17 publications

Effect of chlorhexidine gluconate on porosity and compressive strength of a glass ionomer cement

Effect of chlorhexidine gluconate on porosity and compressive strength of a glass ionomer cement

The crushing truth about glass ionomer restoratives: Exposing the standard of the standard

Effect of ultrasonic excitation on the porosity of glass ionomer cement: A scanning electron microscope evaluation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About