In vivo bracket retention comparison of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement and a resin-based bracket adhesive system after a year

2002 ◽  
Vol 121 (5) ◽  
pp. 496-501 ◽  
Author(s):  
David J. Hegarty ◽  
Tatiana V. Macfarlane
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Ionomer Cement

scholarly journals Microleakage after Thermocycling of Three Self-Etch Adhesives under Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Cement Restorations

2010 ◽  
Vol 2010 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabine O. Geerts ◽  
Laurence Seidel ◽  
Adelin I. Albert ◽  
Audrey M. Gueders
Keyword(s):  
Polyacrylic Acid ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Class V ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
One Step ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Ionomer Cement

This study was designed to evaluate microleakage that appeared on Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Cement (RMGIC) restorations. Sixty class V cavities () were cut on thirty extracted third molars, which were randomly allocated to three experimental groups. All the buccal cavities were pretreated with polyacrylic acid, whereas the lingual cavities were treated with three one-step Self-Etch adhesives, respectively, Xeno III (Dentsply Detrey GmbH, Konstanz, Germany), iBond exp (Heraeus Kulzer gmbH & Co. KG, Hanau, Germany), and Adper Prompt-L-Pop (3M ESPE AG, Dental products Seefeld, Germany). All cavities were completely filled with RMGIC, teeth were thermocycled for 800 cycles, and leakage was evaluated. Results were expressed as means standard deviations (SDs). Microleakage scores were analysed by means of generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) assuming an ordinal logistic link function. All results were considered to be significant at the 5% critical level (). The results showed that bonding RMGIC to dentin with a Self-Etch adhesive rather than using polyacrylic acid did not influence microleakage scores (), except for one tested Self-Etch adhesive, namely, Xeno III (). Nevertheless, our results did not show any significant difference between the three tested Self-Etch adhesive systems. In conclusion, the pretreatment of dentin with Self-Etch adhesive system, before RMGIC filling, seems to be an alternative to the conventional Dentin Conditioner for the clinicians as suggested by our results (thermocycling) and others (microtensile tests).

scholarly journals Microleakage in bonded amalgam restorations using different adhesive materials

2004 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maximiliano Sérgio Cenci ◽  
Evandro Piva ◽  
Fernando Potrich ◽  
Elenita Formolo ◽  
Flávio Fernando Demarco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Blue Dye ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Cements ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Amalgam Restorations ◽  
Ionomer Cement ◽  
Adhesive Materials

The aim of this study was to verify the ability of different adhesive materials to prevent microleakage in bonded amalgam restorations. Standard cavities were prepared in both buccal and lingual surfaces of 35 bovine incisors. The gingival wall was located in cementum/dentin and the occlusal wall in enamel. Teeth (n=35) were divided into 5 groups, according to material employed (one glass-ionomer cement, two resin cements, one adhesive system, and Copalex varnish as a control). Following restoration, the teeth were submitted to thermal cycling. The teeth were subsequently immersed in methylene blue dye and sectioned to allow assessment of microleakage. Non-parametric statistical analysis indicated that all materials demonstrated less leakage than the control group (p<0.01). No leakage was found using the resin-modified glass-ionomer cement, which was significantly different from the other adhesive materials (p<0.05). Leakage in enamel was lower than in cementum/dentin margins. It was concluded that bonded amalgam was an effective technique, since all materials prevented microleakage in enamel and cementum/dentin, when compared to the control group, except Panavia in cementum/dentin margins.

scholarly journals In vitro and in vivo investigation of the biological and mechanical behaviour of resin-modified glass-ionomer cement containing chlorhexidine

2013 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aline Rogéria Freire de Castilho ◽  
Cristiane Duque ◽  
Thaís de Cássia Negrini ◽  
Nancy Tomoko Sacono ◽  
Andréia Bolzan de Paula ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Behaviour ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Ionomer Cement

scholarly journals Shear Bond Strength of Two Adhesive Materials to Eroded Enamel

2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 700-703 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniela Hesse ◽  
Tathiane Lenzi ◽  
Camila Guglielmi ◽  
Ketlin Anacleto ◽  
Daniela Prócida Raggio
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Ionomer Cement ◽  
Adhesive Materials

ABSTRACT Aim To evaluate the bond strength of one etch-and-rinse adhesive system and one resin-modified glass ionomer cement to sound and eroded enamel. Materials and methods Forty-eight bovine incisors were embedded in acrylic resin and ground to obtain flat buccal enamel surfaces. Half of the specimens were submitted to erosion challenge with pH-cycling model (3x/cola drink for 7 days) to induce eroded enamel. After that, all specimens were randomly assigned according to adhesive material: etch-andrinse adhesive system (Adper Single Bond 2 – 3M ESPE, USA) or resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Vitro Fil LC – DFL, Brazil). The shear bond testing was performed after 24 hours water storage (0.5 mm/min). Shear bond strength means were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc tests (p < 0.05). Results Adper Single Bond 2 showed the highest bond strength value to eroded enamel (p < 0.05), whereas no difference was observed in sound enamel compared with Vitro Fil LC (p > 0.05). Conclusion Bond strength of etch-and-rinse adhesive system increases in eroded enamel, while no difference is verified to resin-modified glass ionomer cement. Clinical significance Adhesive materials may be used in eroded enamel without jeopardizing the bonding quality; however it is preferable to use etch-and-rinse adhesive system. How to cite this article Lenzi T, Hesse D, Guglielmi C, Anacleto K, Raggio DP. Shear Bond Strength of Two Adhesive Materials to Eroded Enamel. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013;14(4):700-703.

Microleakage of class II restoration with zirconia inlay: An in vitro study

2019 ◽  
pp. 61-67
Author(s):  
Xuan Anh Ngoc Ho ◽  
Anh Chi Phan ◽  
Toai Nguyen
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Ionomer Cement ◽  
Group 1 ◽  
Composite Restoration

Background: Class II restoration with zirconia inlay is concerned by numerous studies about the luting coupling between zirconia inlay and teeth. The present study was performed to evaluate the microleakage of Class II zirconia inlayusing two different luting agents and compare to direct restoration using bulk fill composite. Aims: To evaluate the microleakage of Class II restorations using three different techniques. Materials and methods: The study was performed in laboratory with three groups. Each of thirty extracted human teeth was prepared a class II cavity with the same dimensions, then these teeth were randomly divided into 3 groups restored by 3 different approaches. Group 1: zirconia inlay cemented with self-etch resin cement (Multilink N); Group 2: zirconia inlay cemented with resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Fuji Plus); Group 3: direct composite restoration using bulk fill composite(Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill). All restorations were subjected to thermal cycling (100 cycles 50C – 55 0C), then immersed to 2% methylene blue solution for 24 hours. The microleakage determined by the extent of dye penetration along the gingival wall was assessed using two methods: quantitative and semi-quantitative method. Results: Among three types of restorations, group 1 demonstrated the significantly lower rate of leakage compared to the others, while group 2 and 3 showed no significant difference. Conclusion: Zirconia inlay restoration cemented with self-etch resin cement has least microleakage degree when compare to class II zirconia inlay restoration cemented with resin-modified glass ionomer cement and direct composite restoration using bulk fill composite. Key words: inlay, zirconia ceramic, class II restoration, microleakage.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document