Evaluation of surface roughness and hardness of different glass ionomer cements

Bala, Oya; Arisu, Deniz Hacer; Yikilgan, İhsan; Arslan, Seda; Güllü, Abdulkadir

doi:10.1055/s-0039-1698934

Cited by 101 publications

(99 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Also, bioactive glasses and ceramics can interact with bone and dentin in biologi-cal environments like saliva (17). Some studies exhibited the remineralizing effect of bioactive glass materials on dentin and antimicrobial properties (18,19).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Different Percentages of Microhydroxyapatite on Microhardness of Resin-modified Glass-ionomer and Zirconomer

Sharafeddin¹,

Shoale²,

Kowkabi³

2017

J Clin Exp Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundHydroxyapatite (HA) is the main mineral component of the tooth structure, which exhibits considerable biological behavior and its incorporation might improve microhardness of dental materials. Microhardness of restorative materials, like glass-ionomer, is critical for the clinical longevity of restorations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the microhardness of two glass-ionomers types by incorporating different percentages of microhydroxyapatite.Material and MethodsIn this study, 80 disc-shaped experimental specimens (6 mm in diameter, 2 mm in height) were prepared in 8 groups, including resin-modified glass-ionomer (RMGI, GC, Gold Label, Japan), zirconia-reinforced glass-ionomer (Zirconomer, Shofu, Kyoto, Japan), and their mixture with 0, 5, 15 and 25 wt% of microhydroxyapatite (Sigma-Aldrich, Germany). All the specimens were stored in deionized water at 37ºC for 24 hours. Then Vickers microhardness test was carried out on the both sides of specimens and data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and paired t-test (P<0.05).ResultsMicrohardness of Zirconomer and RMGI increased significantly due to adding 5 and 15 wt% of micrhydrox-yapatite (P<0.001). The highest Vickers hardness number (VHN) was recorded in the RMGI group with 5 wt% of microhydroxyapatite. In addition, in all the study groups RMGI exhibited higher microhardness values than Zirconomer (P<0.001). However, microhardness values decreased significantly after adding 25 wt% of microhydroxyapatite to Zirconomer (P<0.001). Similarly, VHN decreased in RMGI groups containing 25 wt% of HA compared to control groups (without HA) (P<0.001).ConclusionsIncorporation of 5 and 15 wt% of microhydroxyapatite to RMGI and Zirconomer improved microhardness, while adding 25 wt% of HA decreased hardness with both experimental materials compared to the control groups (without HA). Key words:Microhardness, Resin-modified glass-ionomer, Zirconia-reinforced glass ionomer, Microhydroxyapatite.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Different Percentages of Microhydroxyapatite on Microhardness of Resin-modified Glass-ionomer and Zirconomer

Sharafeddin¹,

Shoale²,

Kowkabi³

2017

J Clin Exp Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[242526] According to this, GC9 should have highest delta value followed by GC2 LC, but in our study, GC2 LC showed highest delta value followed by GC 9 and rest of the sequence was similar as above [Figure 2]. This can be explained by the study of Berzin et al .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

Evaluation of effect of ultrasonic scaling on surface roughness of four different tooth-colored class V restorations: An in-vitro study

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims:This study evaluated the effect of ultrasonic scaling on surface roughness of four different tooth-colored class V restorations.Materials and Methods:Out of 100 human extracted teeth, 20 were randomly selected for each group, marked with the outline of class V cavity. Class V cavities were prepared on facial surface of teeth of all groups except control group. These cavities were then restored with GC 2, GC 9, GC 2 LC, and Filtek Z 250 XT. All the specimens were stored in artificial saliva at 37°C for 1 month. Initial surface roughness values (Ra in μm) of restorations were evaluated with the surface roughness tester. Ultrasonic instrumentation was then carried out for 60 s on the restoration surface and final roughness values were evaluated. Data were analyzed with Paired t-test, One-way ANOVA, Tukey's test.Results:Mean Pre-instrumentation surface roughness was highest with GC 2, whereas it was least in case of Filtek Z 250 XT. Mean post-instrumentation surface roughness was highest with GC 2, whereas it is least in case of Filtek Z 250 XT.Conclusion:GC 2 LC showed highest and Filtek Z 250 XT showed least susceptibility to ultrasonic scaling.

show abstract

“…The first parameter normally considered when evaluating the finishing of a dental surface is roughness. Clearly, low roughness is desired on all dental surfaces as this minimizes the rate of bacterial adhesion, forming biofilm and initiating plaque and eventually caries . Whereas for single dental material surfaces, the golden standard for evaluation of roughness is the atomic force microscope; for complex systems such as the present three‐materials interface, the large inspection volume required makes it necessary to use the three‐dimensional profilometry developed here.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reviewing the results in Table and Figures and , it can be seen that the group Rel specimens presented surface roughness equivalent to that of specimens in group Pan, but lower than that of specimens in group NX3. In the literature, some authors have tested the degree of morphological defects in CAD‐CAM crowns after polishing was carried out with different techniques, whereas other authors have evaluated the surface roughness of glass ionomer and resinous cements with profilometer after polishing by means of various techniques. None of these studies included a type of prosthesis similar to the one carried out for this analysis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Clearly, low roughness is desired on all dental surfaces as this minimizes the rate of bacterial adhesion, forming biofilm and initiating plaque and eventually caries. [20][21][22][23] Whereas for single dental material surfaces, the golden standard for evaluation of roughness is the atomic force microscope; 20,24 for complex systems such as the present three-materials interface, the large inspection volume required makes it necessary to use the threedimensional profilometry developed here. According to the literature, the best system for polishing the edge of the crown in lithium disilicate is the sequence characterized by three finishing discs, 25 whereas no consensus has been reached on the best system for finishing the cement layer.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Microstructure of Titanium‐Cement‐Lithium Disilicate Interface in CAD‐CAM Dental Implant Crowns: A Three‐Dimensional Profilometric Analysis

Cresti

Itri²,

Rebaudi

et al. 2013

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Evaluation of surface roughness and hardness of different glass ionomer cements

Cited by 101 publications

References 29 publications

Effects of Different Percentages of Microhydroxyapatite on Microhardness of Resin-modified Glass-ionomer and Zirconomer

Effects of Different Percentages of Microhydroxyapatite on Microhardness of Resin-modified Glass-ionomer and Zirconomer

Evaluation of effect of ultrasonic scaling on surface roughness of four different tooth-colored class V restorations: An in-vitro study

Microstructure of Titanium‐Cement‐Lithium Disilicate Interface in CAD‐CAM Dental Implant Crowns: A Three‐Dimensional Profilometric Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About