New trends in glass-ionomer chemistry

Guggenberger, R.; May, R; Stefan, Klaus-Peter

doi:10.1016/s0142-9612(97)00127-0

Cited by 129 publications

(108 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It was also observed that Fuji IX, under all the experimental conditions studied, presented significantly higher mean microhardness values when compared with those of the other GICs, probably due to the increase in the powder-liquid ratio, in agreement with the findings of Guggenberger et al 4 (1998), Peutzfeldt et al 5 19 (2000), Yao et al 21 (1990) and Yap et al 3 (2002). This observation leads us to reject the null hypothesis, since the storage time influenced the mean microhardness values of the GICs tested.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…These have the highest powder-liquid ratio, resulting in a material that presents the least surface wear and setting time when compared with conventional GICs, 4 which makes it easy to use in areas that do not have electrical power to enable the use of saliva suction devices.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They have higher mean compression strength, mean wear resistance and material surface hardness values 3 when compared with the conventional GICs and some of the resinmodified GICs. 3,4,5 In spite of the improvement in the mechanical properties and manipulation characteristics of the GICs indicated for the ART technique, the setting reaction of this material continues to be prolonged, and premature exposure to humidity or excessive drying could cause deleterious effects on the material, since water is essential for the formation of the cement matrix, and it is very important to maintain a hydric balance in the material. 6 According to Ellakuria et al 7 (2003), there are changes in the mechanical properties of GICs over the course of time.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

show abstract

“…The literature [23,31,68,79,80] also researched and commented on the effect of PAA concentration on the mechanical properties of GPCs. Table 5 brings together the results observed by a series of studies by Fennell and Hill [32,33,62], which focused on the influence of PAA concentration and molar mass on the fracture properties of GPCs.…”

Section: Effect Of the Paa Concentrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of poly(acrylic acid) in conventional glass polyalkenoate cements

Alhalawani

Curran

Boyd

et al. 2015

Journal of Polymer Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract Glass polyalkenoate cements (GPCs) have been used in dentistry for over 40 years. These novel bioactive materials are the result of a reaction between a finely ground glass (base) and a polymer (acid), usually poly(acrylic acid) (PAA), in the presence of water. This article reviews the types of PAA used as reagents (including how they vary by molar mass, molecular weight, concentration, polydispersity and content) and the way that they control the properties of the conventional GPCs (CGPCs) formulated from them. The article also considers the effect of PAA on the clinical performance of CGPCs, including biocompatibility, rheological and mechanical properties, adhesion, ion release, acid erosion and clinical durability. The review has critically evaluated the literature and clarified the role that the polyacid component of CGPCs plays in setting and maturation. This review will lead to an improved understanding of the chemistry and properties of the PAA phase which will lead to further innovation in the glass-based cements field.

show abstract

“…However, among the limitations of the material would be the prolonged jellification reaction, sensitivity, dehydration or excessive initial humidity, low resistance to stress and compression, and esthetic problems due to its limited translucence [21]. The mechanical properties of this material may be improved if there were an increase in the powder/liquid ratio, concentration of polyacid, or molecular weight of the polyacid, however, the factor that would limit this improvement would be the change in viscosity and manipulation [22]. In the present study an alteration was made in the powder/liquid ratio, and in fact, in Group 2 (Vitro Molar with modified proportion) a longer time of manipulation was required (40 seconds) so that all the powder would be incorporated into the liquid, when compared with the conventional proportion (20 seconds).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surface Hardness of Glass Ionomer Cements used in Atraumatic Restorative Treatment

Barbosa¹,

Lopes²,

Lima³

et al. 2016

Pesqui. bras. odontopediatria clín. integr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the surface hardness of a national glass ionomer cement with increased powder / liquid ratio, suitable for the atraumatic restorative treatment technique. Material and Methods: This is a study of the quantitative experimental type, in which 30 specimens were made and divided equally into 03 experimental groups (glass ionomer cement restorative Vitro Molar -DFL in the proportion specified by the manufacturer; glass ionomer cement restorative Vitro molar ratio -DFL modified with incorporation of 50% powder; and Gold Label 9 -GC Corporation in the proportion specified by the manufacturer). After handling, the materials were placed in a Teflon mold for manufacturing the cylindrical samples (5mm x 2 mm), with the aid of a Centrix syringe (Centrix, Shelton, CT, USA). Specimens were stored in liquid petroleum jelly at a temperature 37 ° ± 1 for up to 7 days. The specimens were evaluated by Vickers hardness test at time intervals of 24 hours and 7 days after manufacture. The data were subjected to the Independent Student's-t tests and analysis of variance (ANOVA), and subsequently by Tukey's test at 95% level of significance. Results: The setting time positively influenced the hardness of the two glass ionomer cements (p<0,001). Cement Gold Label 9 showed higher hardness values than cement Vitro Molar (p<0,001), irrespective of the evaluation time interval. The latter in turn, showed improved values when manipulated with the modified powder / liquid ratio (3: 2) (p<0,001). Conclusion: Vitro Molar glass ionomer cement showed higher hardness values when manipulated with the modified powder/liquid ratio.

show abstract

New trends in glass-ionomer chemistry

Cited by 129 publications

References 0 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

The role of poly(acrylic acid) in conventional glass polyalkenoate cements

Surface Hardness of Glass Ionomer Cements used in Atraumatic Restorative Treatment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About