Effect of one-year water storage on the surface microhardness of resin-modified versus conventional glass-ionomer cements

Ellakuria, J; Triana, R; Mı́nguez, N; Солер, Я.И.; Ibaseta, Guillermo; Maza, José L.; Garcı́a-Godoy, F

doi:10.1016/s0109-5641(02)00042-8

Cited by 89 publications

(113 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…3,7,21 This increase in microhardness of the studied materials is probably related to the acid-base reaction that occurs in a slow and continuous manner. This reaction, which forms the cross-link of polycarboxylate chains, is a continuous process and lasts for a long period.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Surface hardness tests appear to be appropriate for evaluating the degradation and durability of dental materials, to observe the effect of storage mediums on the surface, as indicative of resistance to wear and durability, and also to monitor the hardening process of cements. 7,15,16,17 In studies conducted by Ellakuria et al 7 (2003), Peutzfeldt et al 5 (1997), Wang et al 18 (2007), Xie et al 19 (2000) and Yap et al 20 (2004), the GICs indicated for the ART technique presented higher microhardness values when compared with the conventional GICs, with RM-GIC and cermets. These studies are in agreement with the findings of the present research, since the GICs indicated for the ART technique used demonstrated significantly higher mean microhardness values when compared with those of the control group (V), with the exception of the Magic Glass ART, at the time of 30 days.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Microhardness of glass ionomer cements indicated for the ART technique according to surface protection treatment and storage time

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to assess the microhardness of 5 glass ionomer cements (GIC) -Vidrion R (V, SS White), Fuji IX (F, GC Corp.), Magic Glass ART (MG, Vigodent), Maxxion R (MR, FGM) and ChemFlex (CF, Dentsply) -in the presence or absence of a surface protection treatment, and after different storage periods. For each GIC, 36 test specimens were made, divided into 3 groups according to the surface protection treatment applied -no protection, varnish or nail varnish. The specimens were stored in distilled water for 24 h, 7 and 30 days and the microhardness tests were performed at these times. The data obtained were submitted to the ANOVA for repeated measures and Tukey tests (α = 5%). The results revealed that the mean microhardness values of the GICs were, in decreasing order, as follows: F > CF = MR > MG > V; that surface protection was significant for MR, at 24 h, without protection (64.2 ± 3.6a), protected with GIC varnish (59.6 ± 3.4b) and protected with nail varnish (62.7 ± 2.8ab); for F, at 7 days, without protection (97.8 ± 3.7ab), protected with varnish (95.9 ± 3.2b) and protected with nail varnish (100.8 ± 3.4a); and at 30 days, for F, without protection (98.8 ± 2.6b), protected with varnish (103.3 ± 4.4a) and protected with nail varnish (101 ± 4.1ab) and, for V, without protection (46 ± 1.3b), protected with varnish (49.6 ± 1.7ab) and protected with nail varnish (51.1 ± 2.6a). The increase in storage time produced an increase in microhardness. It was concluded that the different GICs, surface protection treatments and storage times could alter the microhardness values.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Microhardness of glass ionomer cements indicated for the ART technique according to surface protection treatment and storage time

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…6 Resin-modified GI cements (RMGIs), one of the major categories of commercial GIs, were developed to partly overcome the problems associated with conventional GIs, such as poor handling characteristics, sensitivity to moisture during initial setting, and poor physicomechanical strength. 3,7,8 Recently, a new category of GI restorative materials was introduced for the restoration of primary teeth and small cavities in permanent teeth: the nanofilled RMGIs (Ketac N100 or Ketac Nano Light-Curing; 3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA), a paste/paste material. 9 Its primary curing mechanism involves light activation, and no redox reactions or self-curing occur during setting.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Chemical and Mechanical Degradation on Surface Roughness of Three Glass Ionomers and a Nanofilled Resin Composite

Carvalho¹,

Sampaio²,

Fucio³

et al. 2012

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The nanofilled glass ionomer provides intermediate resistance to chemical and mechanical degradation among the glass ionomer cements (conventional and resin-modified) and nanofilled composite. SUMMARYNanofillers have been incorporated into glass ionomer (GI) restorative materials to improve their mechanical and surface properties. The aim of this present laboratory study was to compare the superficial roughness (Ra) of nanofilled GI (Ketac N100) with that of conventional GI (Fuji IX GP), resin-modified GI (Vitremer), and a nanofilled resin composite (Filtek Supreme) after pH cycling and toothbrush abrasion. Ten specimens of each material were made using Teflon molds, which were polished using aluminum-oxide abrasive disks. Three measurements of Ra were made of each specimen to serve as baseline values. The specimens were submitted to pH cycling for 10 days in a demineralization solution for six

show abstract

“…Regarding microhardness, materials showed a decrease of this mechanical property, and the lowest values were observed for Groups 2, 3 and 4. Material can be "more" or "less" hard, depending on several factors such as chemical composition, polycarboxylic acid concentration and molecular weight, powder / liquid ratio and storage time and type [11]. Probably, a combination of these factors explains variations found in results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Surface hardness tests have been used to evaluate the degradation and durability of these materials, to evaluate the effect of the storage media on the surface (since conventional ionomer glass is very sensitive to water absorption) as indicative of wear resistance and durability, and also to monitor the hardening process of cements [11][12][13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Fluoride Release, pH and Microhardness of Glass Ionomer Cements

Cardoso¹,

Leitão²,

Neto³

et al. 2015

Pesqui. bras. odontopediatria clín. integr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate fluoride release, pH and microhardness of glass ionomer cements (GIC). Material and Methods: Four different cements: Vidrion ® R (G1), Vitro Fil ® (G2), Maxxion ® (G3) and Magic Glass ® (G4) and a composite resin (G5 -control group) comprised the sample. Thirty specimens were manufactured (10 mm x 3 mm) and stored in deionized water. Analyses were performed after 24 hours, 7 days and 28 days. The following devices were used for measurements: fluorometer, pH meter and microhardness tester. Data were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney, Friedman and Wilcoxon tests (α = 0.05) using the SPSS ® software (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) version 17. Results: GICs were able to release fluoride; however, the amount released decreased with increasing immersion time (p <0.002). The pH of all products increased over time, the lowest value was identified for Magic Glass (5.93) and the highest for Maxxion (6.94) at time of 24 h. Materials showed significant decrease in surface microhardness, especially G4 for presenting the lowest recorded values (p <0.05). Conclusion: GICs are fluoride-releasing restorative materials with pH favorable to oral homeostasis and good mechanical behavior.

show abstract

Effect of one-year water storage on the surface microhardness of resin-modified versus conventional glass-ionomer cements

Cited by 89 publications

References 29 publications

Microhardness of glass ionomer cements indicated for the ART technique according to surface protection treatment and storage time

Microhardness of glass ionomer cements indicated for the ART technique according to surface protection treatment and storage time

Effect of Chemical and Mechanical Degradation on Surface Roughness of Three Glass Ionomers and a Nanofilled Resin Composite

Evaluation of Fluoride Release, pH and Microhardness of Glass Ionomer Cements

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About