Acid-base complex reactions in resin-modified and conventional glass ionomer cements

Wan, Andrew C.A.; Yap, Adrian Ujin; Hastings, G.W.

doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-4636(1999)48:5<700::aid-jbm15>3.0.co;2-1

Cited by 47 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of this study showed that the γ S + and γ S − values of cement surfaces were significantly related to the bond strengths of conventional GIC. The functional groups used in the self-etch adhesive will dissociate to release protons in aqueous solutions, and will be able to react with the fluoroalumino silicate glass (proton acceptor), which is a typical glass ionomer acid-base reactions 31) . Apart from wetting effects, these proton-releasing functional groups may establish surface chemical reactions to a certain extent when applied at sufficient concentrations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

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

Section: Discussionmentioning

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

show abstract

“…As carried out by Wan et al 17 , the adhesive disks were ground and transformed into disks again with potassium bromide (KBr). The proportion or weight of the adhesive/KBr mixture used was 1:20.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of cytotoxicity and degree of conversion of orthodontic adhesives over different time periods

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As new orthodontic resin adhesives continue to be marketed, rapid and sensitive tests for examining their toxic effects at the ' cell and tissue level ' are needed because patient safety has been identifi ed as a legal concept. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the cytotoxicity and degree of monomer conversion of orthodontic adhesives over different time periods. Seven adhesives: Transbond ® XT, Transbond ® Color Change, Quick Cure, EagleBond, Orthobond ® , Fill Mágic ® and Biofix ® were evaluated for their cytotoxicity in L929 fibroblastic cells and for their degree of monomer conversion over different time periods. Three control groups were also analysed: Positive control (C+), consisting of Tween 80 cell detergent; Negative control (C-), consisting of PBS; and cell control (CC), consisting of cells exposed to any material. The dye-uptake technique that involves the absorption of a neutral red dye in viable cells was used for the cytotoxicity evaluation and the degree of conversion was evaluated using spectroscopy with infrared. The results showed the cytotoxicity of the adhesives at 24, 48, 72 and 168 hours. At these times, the viability values presented for these materials were statistically different from the groups CC and C-(p < 0.05). At 168 hours, all the groups showed low cytotoxicity with high cell viability and with no statistical difference with the groups CC and C-(P > 0.05). In the monomer conversions there was a percentage increase of monomer conversion from 24 to 72 hours. A direct correlation could be observed between cytotoxicity and monomer conversions. From this work it can be concluded that all adhesives evaluated are cytotoxic at the times of 24, 48 and 72 hours. Monomers continued conversion even after photopolymerization had stopped.

show abstract

“…The one-week period chosen was carried out to allow post-irradiation hardening of the composites and stabilization of the acid-base reaction of glass ionomer cements. [17][18][25][26] As the greatest change in hardness has been shown to occur within the first seven days and the hardness of composites is affected by conditioning for seven days, this period of conditioning was selected for this experiment. 19 Various assessment techniques have been applied to evaluate the degradation of dental materials and loss of dental hard tissue by erosive challenges, such as microhardness, [16][17][19][20][21] surface roughness, 21,27 weight changes, 22 compressive, biaxial flexure and shear punch strength 18,23 and wear.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Erosive pH Cycling on Different Restorative Materials and on Enamel Restored with These Materials

Francisconi¹,

Honório²,

Ríos³

et al. 2008

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The different types of restorative materials tested were not able to protect adjacent enamel from erosion. Thus, the ability of a restorative material to prevent tooth erosion should not be considered when choosing a material. SUMMARYThis in vitro study evaluated the effect of erosive pH cycling on the percentage of surface microhardness change (%SMHC) and wear of different restorative materials and bovine enamel restored with these materials. Eighty enamel specimens were randomly divided into eight groups according to the restorative materials and immersion media used: GI/GV-resin-modified glass-ionomer, GII/GVI-conventional glassionomer, GIII/GVII-resin composite and GIV/GVIII-amalgam. Over a period of seven days, groups GI to GIV were immersed in a cola drink (ERO) for 5 minutes, 3x/day and kept in artificial saliva between erosive cycles. Groups GV to GVIII were immersed in artificial saliva (SAL) throughout the entire experimental period (control). Data were tested for significant differences using ANOVA and Tukey's tests (p<0.05). For %SMHC, considering the restorative materials, no significant differences were detected among the materials and immersion media. Mean wear was higher for the resin modified glass ionomer cement when compared to conventional cement, but those materials did not significantly differ from the others. For enamel analyses, erosive pH cycling promoted higher wear and %SMHC compared to saliva. There were no significant differences in wear and %SMHC of enamel around the different restorative materi-

show abstract

Acid-base complex reactions in resin-modified and conventional glass ionomer cements

Cited by 47 publications

References 12 publications

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

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

Evaluation of cytotoxicity and degree of conversion of orthodontic adhesives over different time periods

Effect of Erosive pH Cycling on Different Restorative Materials and on Enamel Restored with These Materials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About