Search

The objective was to evaluate the compressive strength (CS), diametral tensile strength (DTS), flexural strength (FS), and Knoop microhardness (KH) of different conventional restorative glass-ionomer cements (GICs) and to correlate these mechanical properties (MP) with the stabilization time (ST) of their chemical bonds. Eighteen GICs were tested: Bioglass [B], Chemfil Rock [CR], Equia Forte [EF], Gold Label 2 [GL2], Gold Label 9 [GL9], Glass Ionomer Cement II [GI], Ionglass [IG], Ion Z[ IZ], Ionomaster [IM], Ionofil Plus [IP], Ionostar Plus [IS], Ketac Molar Easymix [KM], Magic Glass [MG], Maxxion R [Ma], Riva Self Cure [R], Vidrion R [V], Vitro Fil [VF] and Vitro Molar [VM]. The mechanical strength tests were performed in a universal testing machine. KH readings were done with a diamond indenter. STs were examined by Fourier Transform Infrared spectroscopy (FTIR). Data were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey test (p<0.05). The Spearman rank test was used to evaluate the dependence between the MPs and ST results. The highest MP values were EF, GL2, GL9, GI and KM and the lowest for MG, MA, B, VF and IM. The longest ST was for GL2 and the shortest was for B. ST correlated positively with MP. GICs with longer chemical bonds ST are generally stronger and the ST value obtained from FTIR was useful in predicting the strength of GICs tested.

Objective: Glass-ionomer cements (GICs) modified with cellulose nanocrystals (CNs) were characterized and evaluated for compressive strength (CS), diametral tensile strength (DTS) and fluoride release (F - )., Methods: Commercially available GICs (Maxxion, Vidrion R, Vitro Molar, Ketac Molar Easy Mix and Fuji Gold Label 9) were reinforced with CNs (0.2% by weight). The microstructure of CNs and of CN-modified GICs were evaluated by transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) while chemical characterization was by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR). Ten specimens each of the unmodified (control) and CN-modified materials (test materials) were prepared for CS and DTS testing. For the fluoride release evaluation, separate specimens (n=10) of each test and control material were made. The results obtained were submitted to the t-test (p<0.05)., Results: The CN reinforcement significantly improved the mechanical properties and significantly increased the F - release of all GICs (p<0.05). The GICs with CNs showed a fibrillar aggregate of nanoparticles interspersed in the matrix. The compounds with CNs showed a higher amount of C compared to the controls due to the organic nature of the CNs. It was not possible to identify by FTIR any chemical bond difference in the compounds formed when nanofibers were inserted in the GICs., Significance: Modification of GICs with CNs appears to produce promising restorative materials., (Copyright © 2019 The Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the influence of external energy sources on the dynamic setting process of glass-ionomer restorative materials., Methods: Eighteen brands of GIC were studied: Bioglass R (Biodinâmica; G1), Chemfil Rock (Dentsply; G2), Equia Forte (GC; G3), Gold Label 2 (GC; G4), Gold Label 9 (GC; G5), Glass Ionomer Cement Type II - (Shofu; G6), Ionglass R (Maquira; G7), Ion Z (FGM; G8), Ionomaster (Wilcos; G9), Ionofil Plus (Voco; G10), Ionostar Plus (Voco; G11), Ketac Molar easymix (3M ESPE; G12), Magic Glass R (Vigodent; G13), Maxxion R (FGM; G14), Riva Self Cure (SDI; G15), Vidrion R (SS White; G16), Vitro Fil R (Nova DFL; G17) and Vitro Molar (Nova DFL; G18). LED, halogen light or ultrasound (n=20 for each set) applied for 30s was used to activate setting, and a control group of each material was allowed to set without activation. Samples were analyzed by FTIR spectroscopy using the ratio of intensities of bands at 1637cm -1 (carboxylate) and 1720cm -1 (carbonyl) as a function of time. Means and standard deviations were subjected to ANOVA and Tukey tests (p<0.05)., Results: All three activation modes significantly reduced the time at which the carboxylate content became stable in G2, G4, G5, G6, G8, G10, G14, G16, G17 and G18. By contrast, in G1, G7, G12 and G15 no activation source had any significant effect (p>0.05)., Significance: External activation sources, namely LED, halogen light and ultrasound, typically but not always increase the setting rate of restorative GICs., (Copyright © 2019 The Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)