scholarly journals Cusp Fracture Resistance of Maxillary Premolars Restored with the Bonded Amalgam Technique Using Various Luting Agents

2009 ◽  
Vol 2009 ◽  
pp. 1-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shivaughn M. Marchan ◽  
Larry Coldero ◽  
Daniel White ◽  
William A. J. Smith ◽  
Reisha N. Rafeek
Keyword(s):  
Fracture Resistance ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Bonding Agents ◽  
Luting Agents ◽  
Luting Cement ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Maxillary Premolars ◽  
Bonferroni Test ◽  
Bonding Technique

Objective. This in vitro study uses measurements of fracture resistance to compare maxillary premolars restored with the bonded amalgam technique using a new resin luting cement, glass ionomer, and resin-modified glass ionomer as the bonding agents.Materials. Eighty-five sound maxillary premolars were selected and randomly assigned to one of five test groups of 17 teeth each. One group of intact teeth served as the control. The remaining groups were prepared to a standard cavity form relative to the dimensions of the overall tooth and restored with amalgam alone or a bonded amalgam using one of three luting agents: RelyX Arc (a new resin luting cement), RelyX luting (a resin-modified glass ionomer), or Ketac-Cemμ(a glass ionomer) as the bonding agents. Each tooth was then subjected to compressive testing until catastrophic failure occurred. The mean loads at failure of each group were statistically compared using ANOVA with a post hoc Bonferroni test.Results. It was found that regardless of the luting cement used for the amalgam bonding technique, there was little effect on the fracture resistance of teeth.Conclusion. Cusp fracture resistance of premolars prepared with conservative MOD cavity preparations is not improved by using an amalgam-bonding technique compared to similar cavities restored with amalgam alone.

Comparison of the Solubility of Conventional Luting Cements with that of the Polyacid Modified Composite Luting Cement and Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (12) ◽  
pp. 1016-1021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathew Thomas ◽  
Mohammed Mustafa ◽  
Reshma Karkera ◽  
AP Nirmal Raj ◽  
Lijo Isaac ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Zinc Phosphate ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Time Intervals ◽  
Luting Cements ◽  
Luting Cement ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Ionomer Cement

ABSTRACT Introduction This study was planned to find the solubility of the conventional luting cements in comparison with that of the polyacid-modified composite luting cement and recently introduced resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) with exposure to water at early stages of mixing. Materials and methods An in vitro study of the solubility of the following five commercially available luting cements, viz., glass ionomer cement (GIC) (Fuji I, GC), zinc phosphate (Elite 100, GC), polyacid-modified resin cement (PMCR) (Principle, Dentsply), polycarboxylate cement (PC) (Poly - F, Dentsply), RMGIC (Vitremer, 3M), was conducted. For each of these groups of cements, three resin holders were prepared containing two circular cavities of 5 mm diameter and 2 mm depth. All the cements to be studied were mixed in 30 seconds and then placed in the prepared cavities in the resin cement holder for 30 seconds. Results From all of the observed luting cements, PMCR cement had shown the lowest mean loss of substance at all immersion times and RMGIC showed the highest mean loss of substance at all immersion times in water from 2 to 8 minutes. The solubility of cements decreased by 38% for GIC, 33% for ZnPO4, 50% for PMCR, 29% for PC, and 17% for RMGIC. Conclusion The PMCR cement (Principle-Dentsply) had shown lowest solubility to water at the given time intervals of immersion. This was followed by PC, zinc phosphate, and GIC to various time intervals of immersion. How to cite this article Karkera R, Nirmal Raj AP, Isaac L, Mustafa M, Reddy RN, Thomas M. Comparison of the Solubility of Conventional Luting Cements with that of the Polyacid Modified Composite Luting Cement and Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(12):1016-1021.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Maxillary Premolars Restored with Different Restorative Materials - An In Vitro Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. e5110716150
Author(s):  
Walber Maeda ◽  
Wayne Martins Nascimento ◽  
Marcelo Santos Coelho ◽  
Danilo de Luca Campos ◽  
João Paulo Drumond ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fracture Resistance ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Resistance Testing ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Maxillary Premolars ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Aim: In this study was evaluated the fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored with      different restorative materials. Methods: Sixty maxillary premolars were submitted to the same mesio-occlusal-distal cavity preparation, endodontic treatment and divided into 5 groups (n = 10): Coltosol Group – GCO restored with calcium silicate material; Glass Ionomer Cement Group – GGIC, restored with Maxxion R; Modified Glass Ionomer Cement – GMGIC, restored with Gold Label 2; Composite Group - GC, restored with Z100, and the positive control group (GP) - left unrestored. One group remained intact (n=10) serving as negative control (GN). Samples were subjected to fracture resistance testing by the universal testing machine until fracture occurred and was registered in newtons (N). Fracture pattern was assessed and described as favorable or unfavorable. The results were statistically analyzed by 1-way analysis of variance and the post hoc Tukey test with significant statistical difference at P < 0.05.  Results: Higher fracture resistance results were found for GC (1,128.35 ± 249.17), GMGIC (1,250.77 ± 173.29), and GN (1,277.22 ± 433.44) (P < .05). More favorable fractures were observed in the GCO (6), GC (7), and GN (7) (P < .05). Conclusion: Teeth restored with composite and modified GIC presented the same resistance as intact teeth. Teeth restored with Coltosol and GGIC presented similar resistance to unrestored teeth.

scholarly journals Comparative study of resin sealant and resin modified glass ionomer as pit and fissure sealant

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 21
Author(s):  
Shirin Malek ◽  
Mozammal Hossain ◽  
Md. Abdul Gafur ◽  
Md. Shahjalal Rana ◽  
Md. Ali Asgor Moral
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Good Alternative ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Fissure Sealant ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Organic Debris ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Group B ◽  
Resin Sealant

<p>The purpose of the present study was to compare the marginal integrity of resin modified glass ionomer cement with that of resin sealant, <em>in vitro</em>. Forty artificial pit and fissure cavities were prepared in occlusal surface of extracted premolar teeth by using ¼ round carbide bur. Cavities were condensed with artificial organic debris followed by cleaning with prophylaxis pumice brush and paste and then separated into two treatment groups. In Group A, 15 fissure cavities were sealed by resin sealant and in Group B, 15 fissure cavities were sealed by resin modified glass ionomer sealant. These specimens were subjected to thermo-cycling followed by dye penetration test. The remaining 5 cavities from each group were analyzed for debris score by the SEM. The results of the microleakage test showed that the efficacy of preventing microleakage of samples sealed by resin modified glass ionomer sealant was higher than the samples sealed by resin sealant. However, no significant differences were found. It can be concluded that use of resin modified glass ionomer sealant is a good alternative for sealing pits and fissures.</p>

scholarly journals Quantitative Evaluation by Glucose Diffusion of Microleakage in Aged Calcium Silicate-Based Open-Sandwich Restorations

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Koubi ◽  
H. Elmerini ◽  
G. Koubi ◽  
H. Tassery ◽  
J. Camps
Keyword(s):  
Calcium Silicate ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Calcium Silicate Cement ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Glucose Diffusion ◽  
Negative Controls ◽  
Phosphate Buffered Saline ◽  
Ionomer Cement

This study compared thein vitromarginal integrity of open-sandwich restorations based on aged calcium silicate cement versus resin-modified glass ionomer cement. Class II cavities were prepared on 30 extracted human third molars. These teeth were randomly assigned to two groups () to compare a new hydraulic calcium silicate cement designed for restorative dentistry (Biodentine, Septodont, Saint Maur des Fossés, France) with a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Ionolux, Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany) in open-sandwich restorations covered with a light-cured composite. Positive () and negative () controls were included. The teeth simultaneously underwent thermocycling and mechanocycling using a fatigue cycling machine (1,440 cycles, 5–55°C; 86,400 cycles, 50 N/cm2). The specimens were then stored in phosphate-buffered saline to simulate aging. After 1 year, the teeth were submitted to glucose diffusion, and the resulting data were analyzed with a nonparametric Mann-Whitney test. The Biodentine group and the Ionolux group presented glucose concentrations of 0.074 ± 0.035 g/L and 0.080 ± 0.032 g/L, respectively. No statistically significant differences were detected between the two groups. Therefore, the calcium silicate-based material performs as well as the resin-modified glass ionomer cement in open-sandwich restorations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document