161
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Evaluation of surface roughness and hardness of different glass ionomer cements

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives:

          The aim of this study was to evaluate surface roughness and hardness of a nanofiller GIC, a resin-modified GIC, three conventional GICs, and a silver-reinforced GIC.

          Methods:

          For each material, 11 spcecimens were prepared and then stored in distilled water at 37 °C for 24 h. The surface roughness of 5 specimens was measured using a surface profilometer before polishing and after polishing with coarse, medium, fine, superfine aluminum oxide abrasive Sof-Lex discs respectively. The hardness of the upper surfaces of the remaining 6 specimens was measured with a Vickers microhardness measuring instrument.

          Results:

          All tested GICs showed lower surface roughness values after the polishing procedure. Surface finish of nanofiller GIC was smoother than the other tested GICs after polishing. This was followed by resin-modified GIC, Fuji II LC; then silver-reinforced GIC, Argion Molar, conventional GICs, Aqua Ionofil Plus, Fuji IX, and Ionofil Molar, respectively. The result of the hardness test indicated that the microhardness value of silver-reinforced GIC was greater than that of the other GICs. When the hardness values of all tested GICs were compared, the differences between materials (except Aqua Ionofil Plus with Ionofil Molar and Ketac N100 with Fuji II LC (P>.05)) were found statistically significant (P<.05).

          Conclusions:

          According to the results of this study, it can be concluded that the differences in the composition of GICs may affect their surface roughness and hardness.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The influence of abutment surface roughness on plaque accumulation and peri-implant mucositis.

          Bacterial adhesion to intra-oral, hard surfaces is firmly influenced by the surface roughness to these structures. Previous studies showed a remarkable higher subgingival bacterial load on rough surfaces when compared to smooth sites. More recently, the additional effect of a further smoothening of intra-oral hard surfaces on clinical and microbiological parameters was examined in a short-term experiment. The results indicated that a reduction in surface roughness below R(a) = 0.2 microns, the so-called "thresholds R(a)", had no further effect on the quantitative/qualitative microbiological adhesion or colonisation, neither supra- nor subgingivally. This study aims to examine the long-term effects of smoothening intra-oral hard transgingival surfaces. In 6 patients expecting an overdenture in the lower jaw, supported by endosseus titanium implants, 2 different abutments (transmucosal part of the implant): a standard machined titanium (R(a) = 0.2 microns) and one highly polished and made of a ceramic material (R(a) = 0.06 microns) were randomly installed. After 3 months of intra-oral exposure, supra- and subgingival plaque samples from both abutments were compared with each other by means of differential phase-contrast microscopy (DPCM). Clinical periodontal parameters (probing depth, gingival recession, bleeding upon probing and Periotest-value) were recorded around each abutment. After 12 months, the supra- and subgingival samples were additionally cultured in aerobic, CO2-enriched and anaerobic conditions. The same clinical parameters as at the 3-month interval were recorded after 12 months. At 3 months, spirochetes and motile organisms were only detected subgingivally around the titanium abutments. After 12 months, however, both abutment-types harboured equal proportions of spirochetes and motile organisms, both supra- and subgingivally. The microbial culturing (month 12) failed to detect large inter-abutment differences. The differences in number of colony- forming units (aerobic and anaerobic) were within one division of a logarithmic scale. The aerobic culture data showed a higher proportion of Gram-negative organisms in the subgingival flora of the rougher abutments. From the group of potentially "pathogenic" bacteria, only Prevotella intermedia and Fusobacterium nucleatum were detected for anaerobic culturing and again the inter-abutment differences were negligible. Clinically, the smoothest abutment showed a slightly higher increase in probing depth between months 3 and 12, and more bleeding on probing. The present results confirm the findings of our previous short-term study, indicating that a further reduction of the surface roughness, below a certain "threshold R(a)" (0.2 microns), has no major impact on the supra- and subgingival microbial composition.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Mechanical properties and microstructures of glass-ionomer cements.

            The objective of this study was to determine the flexural strength (FS), compressive strength (CS), diametral tensile strength (DTS), Knoop hardness (KHN) and wear resistance of ten commercial glass-ionomer cements (GICs). The fracture surfaces of these cements were examined using scanning electron microscopic (SEM) techniques to ascertain relationships between the mechanical properties and microstructures of these cements. Specimens were fabricated according to the instructions from each manufacturer. The FS, CS, DTS, KHN and wear rate were measured after conditioning the specimens for 7 d in distilled water at 37 degrees C. One-way analysis of variance with the post hoc Tukey-Kramer multiple range test was used to determine which specimen groups were significantly different for each test. The fracture surface of one representative specimen of each GIC from the FS tests was examined using a scanning electron microscope. The resin-modified GICs (RM GICs) exhibited much higher FS and DTS, not generally higher CS, often lower Knoop hardness and generally lower wear resistance, compared to the conventional GICs (C GICs). Vitremer (3M) had the highest values of FS and DTS; Fuji II LC (GC International) and Ketac-Molar (ESPE) had the highest CS; Ketac-Fil (ESPE) had the highest KHN. Ketac-Bond (ESPE) had the lowest FS; alpha-Silver (DMG-Hamburg) had the lowest CS. Four GICs (alpha-Fil (DMG-Hamburg), alpha-Silver, Ketac-Bond and Fuji II) had the lowest values of DTS, which were not significantly different from each other; alpha-Silver and Ketac-Silver had the lowest values of KHN. The highest wear resistance was exhibited by alpha-Silver and Ketac-Fil; F2LC had the lowest wear resistance. The C GICs exhibited brittle behavior, whereas the RM GICs underwent substantial plastic deformation in compression. The more integrated the microstructure, the higher were the FS and DTS. Higher CS was correlated with smaller glass particles, and higher KHN was found where there was a combination of smaller glass particles and lower porosity. Larger glass particle sizes and a more integrated microstructure contributed to a higher wear resistance. The mechanical properties of GICs were closely related to their microstructures. Factors such as the integrity of the interface between the glass particles and the polymer matrix, the particle size, and the number and size of voids have important roles in determining the mechanical properties.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              CYTOTOXICITY AND BIOCOMPATIBILITY OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT PULP CAPPING MATERIALS

              There are several studies about the cytotoxic effects of dental materials in contact with the pulp tissue, such as calcium hydroxide (CH), adhesive systems, resin composite and glass ionomer cements. The aim of this review article was to summarize and discuss the cytotoxicity and biocompatibility of materials used for protection of the dentin-pulp complex, some components of resin composites and adhesive systems when placed in direct or indirect contact with the pulp tissue. A large number of dental materials present cytotoxic effects when applied close or directly to the pulp, and the only material that seems to stimulate early pulp repair and dentin hard tissue barrier formation is CH.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Eur J Dent
                Eur J Dent
                European Journal of Dentistry
                Dental Investigations Society
                1305-7456
                1305-7464
                January 2012
                : 6
                : 1
                : 79-86
                Affiliations
                [1 ] University of Gazi, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Operative & Restorative Dentistry, Ankara, TURKIYE.
                [2 ] Abant İzzet Baysal University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics, Bolu, TURKIYE.
                [3 ] University of Gazi, Faculty of Technical Education, Department of Engine Education, Ankara, TURKIYE.
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Dr. Oya BALA, Gazi Üniversitesi, Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi, Diş Hastalıkları ve Tedavisi Anabilim Dalı, Emek (06510), Ankara, TURKIYE. E-mail: oyabala@ 123456gazi.edu.tr
                Article
                dent06_p0079
                10.1055/s-0039-1698934
                3252813
                22229011
                75bb9256-c83c-44e3-bb71-d8497a732eb9
                Copyright 2012 European Journal of Dentistry. All rights reserved.
                History
                Categories
                Original Articles

                Dentistry
                hardness,glass ionomer cement,surface roughness
                Dentistry
                hardness, glass ionomer cement, surface roughness

                Comments

                Comment on this article