Effect of Nano-filled Protective Coating on Microhardness and Wear Resistance of Glass-ionomer Cements

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of adding a protective coating on the microhardness and wear resistance of glass ionomer cements (GICs). Specimens were prepared from GIC and resin-modified GIC (RMGI), and divided into 3 groups based on surface protection: (1) no coating (NC), (2) Equia coat coating (EC), and (3) un-filled adhesive coating (AD). All specimens were then placed in distilled water for 24 h. Surface hardness (n = 10) was evaluated on a Vickers hardness testing machine. Wear resistance (n = 10) was evaluated after subjecting the specimen to thermocycling for 10,000 cycles using a chewing simulator. Data were analyzed using a one-way ANOVA and the Kruskal-Wallis test. Surface hardness was highest in the NC groups, followed by the EC and AD groups. The wear depth of GI + NC was significantly higher than that of all RMGI groups. EC did not significantly lower the wear depth compared to AD. Based on these results, it was concluded that although EC does not increase the surface microhardness of GIC, it can increase the wear resistance.

Protective effect of a nanofilled resin-based coating on wear resistance of glass ionomer cement restorative materials

“…While Bonifacio et al [30], showed significant improvement in the wear resistance of Fuji IX GP Extra when G-Coat Plus was applied, Kielbassa et al 's [31] findings on Equia coating supports our outcome by showing a lack of effective long-term protection against abrasive wear for Equia coat. Our finding is also in agreement with that of Rye et al [32] who reported no statistically significant differences in the wear resistance between coated and uncoated GICs. Moreover, Bertrand et al [33] revealed that the application of resin coating caused decreased microhardness of the composite resin's surface.…”

“…However, the study did not use an uncoated control group in their methodology, and thereby, their conclusion may not be as reliable. In other work by Ryu et al [ 32 ] on Equia coat, the authors reported an increase in wear resistance followed by surface protection. The difference in the tested coating as well as fewer chewing cycles implemented in their study may explain the contradictory finding.…”

Protective effect of a nanofilled resin based coating on wear resistance of glass ionomer cement restorative materials

“…While Bonifacio et al [29], showed signi cant improvement in the wear resistance of Fuji IX GP Extra when G-Coat Plus was applied, Kielbassa et al's [30] ndings on Equia coating supports our outcome by showing a lack of effective long-term protection against abrasive wear for Equia coat. Our nding is also in agreement with that of Rye et al [31] who reported no statistically signi cant differences in the wear resistance between coated and uncoated glass ionomer cements. Moreover, Bertrand et al [32] revealed that the application of resin coating caused decreased microhardness of the composite resin's surface.…”

“…However, the study did not use an uncoated control group in their methodology, and thereby, their conclusion may not be as reliable. In other work by Ryu et al [31] on Equia coat, the authors reported an increase in wear resistance followed by surface protection. The difference in the tested coating as well as fewer chewing cycles implemented in their study may explain the contradictory nding.…”

Evaluating the Mechanical Properties of Restorative Glass Ionomers Cements

“…These findings are consistent with those of Kunzelmann et al, 21 who discovered that Fuji IX had the least amount of material loss when compared to Ketac Silver and Ketac Molar. Ryu et al 22 looked at the wear resistance of several GICs and found a substantial difference in early wear rates as well as a considerable decrease in long-term wear rates. Within the time frame of 4 months to 1 year, however, evidence of wear reduction was also detected.…”