hrcak mascot   Srce   HID

Izvorni znanstveni članak
https://doi.org/10.15644/asc53/2/4

Mehanička svojstva visoko viskoznog stakleno ionomera i staklo hibridnog restaurativnog materijala

Ivan Šalinović ; Studenti 6. godine Stomatološkog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, Zagreb, Hrvatska
Matea Stunja ; Studenti 6. godine Stomatološkog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, Zagreb, Hrvatska
Zdravko Schauper ; Zavod za materijale Fakulteta strojarstva i brodogradnje Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, Zagreb, Hrvatska
Željko Verzak ; Department of Pedodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
Ana Ivanišević Malčić ; Zavod za endodonciju i restaurativnu stomatologiju Stomatološkog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, Zagreb, Hrvatska
Valentina Brzović Rajić ; Zavod za endodonciju i restaurativnu stomatologiju Stomatološkog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, Zagreb, Hrvatska

Puni tekst: hrvatski, pdf (312 KB) str. 125-131 preuzimanja: 37* citiraj
APA 6th Edition
Šalinović, I., Stunja, M., Schauper, Z., Verzak, Ž., Ivanišević Malčić, A. i Brzović Rajić, V. (2019). Mehanička svojstva visoko viskoznog stakleno ionomera i staklo hibridnog restaurativnog materijala. Acta stomatologica Croatica, 53 (2), 125-131. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc53/2/4
MLA 8th Edition
Šalinović, Ivan, et al. "Mehanička svojstva visoko viskoznog stakleno ionomera i staklo hibridnog restaurativnog materijala." Acta stomatologica Croatica, vol. 53, br. 2, 2019, str. 125-131. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc53/2/4. Citirano 18.11.2019.
Chicago 17th Edition
Šalinović, Ivan, Matea Stunja, Zdravko Schauper, Željko Verzak, Ana Ivanišević Malčić i Valentina Brzović Rajić. "Mehanička svojstva visoko viskoznog stakleno ionomera i staklo hibridnog restaurativnog materijala." Acta stomatologica Croatica 53, br. 2 (2019): 125-131. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc53/2/4
Harvard
Šalinović, I., et al. (2019). 'Mehanička svojstva visoko viskoznog stakleno ionomera i staklo hibridnog restaurativnog materijala', Acta stomatologica Croatica, 53(2), str. 125-131. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc53/2/4
Vancouver
Šalinović I, Stunja M, Schauper Z, Verzak Ž, Ivanišević Malčić A, Brzović Rajić V. Mehanička svojstva visoko viskoznog stakleno ionomera i staklo hibridnog restaurativnog materijala. Acta stomatologica Croatica [Internet]. 2019 [pristupljeno 18.11.2019.];53(2):125-131. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc53/2/4
IEEE
I. Šalinović, M. Stunja, Z. Schauper, Ž. Verzak, A. Ivanišević Malčić i V. Brzović Rajić, "Mehanička svojstva visoko viskoznog stakleno ionomera i staklo hibridnog restaurativnog materijala", Acta stomatologica Croatica, vol.53, br. 2, str. 125-131, 2019. [Online]. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc53/2/4
Puni tekst: engleski, pdf (312 KB) str. 125-131 preuzimanja: 33* citiraj
APA 6th Edition
Šalinović, I., Stunja, M., Schauper, Z., Verzak, Ž., Ivanišević Malčić, A. i Brzović Rajić, V. (2019). Mechanical Properties of High Viscosity Glass Ionomer and Glass Hybrid Restorative Materials. Acta stomatologica Croatica, 53 (2), 125-131. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc53/2/4
MLA 8th Edition
Šalinović, Ivan, et al. "Mechanical Properties of High Viscosity Glass Ionomer and Glass Hybrid Restorative Materials." Acta stomatologica Croatica, vol. 53, br. 2, 2019, str. 125-131. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc53/2/4. Citirano 18.11.2019.
Chicago 17th Edition
Šalinović, Ivan, Matea Stunja, Zdravko Schauper, Željko Verzak, Ana Ivanišević Malčić i Valentina Brzović Rajić. "Mechanical Properties of High Viscosity Glass Ionomer and Glass Hybrid Restorative Materials." Acta stomatologica Croatica 53, br. 2 (2019): 125-131. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc53/2/4
Harvard
Šalinović, I., et al. (2019). 'Mechanical Properties of High Viscosity Glass Ionomer and Glass Hybrid Restorative Materials', Acta stomatologica Croatica, 53(2), str. 125-131. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc53/2/4
Vancouver
Šalinović I, Stunja M, Schauper Z, Verzak Ž, Ivanišević Malčić A, Brzović Rajić V. Mechanical Properties of High Viscosity Glass Ionomer and Glass Hybrid Restorative Materials. Acta stomatologica Croatica [Internet]. 2019 [pristupljeno 18.11.2019.];53(2):125-131. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc53/2/4
IEEE
I. Šalinović, M. Stunja, Z. Schauper, Ž. Verzak, A. Ivanišević Malčić i V. Brzović Rajić, "Mechanical Properties of High Viscosity Glass Ionomer and Glass Hybrid Restorative Materials", Acta stomatologica Croatica, vol.53, br. 2, str. 125-131, 2019. [Online]. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc53/2/4

Rad u XML formatu

Sažetak
Svrha rada: Željela su se odrediti mehanička svojstva hibridnih i visokoviskoznih staklenoionomernih cemenata. Mjerila se tlačna čvrstoća i tvrdoća triju staklenoionomernoh cemenata (SIC-ova) –
Ketac™ Universal Aplicap™, EQUIA Fil® i EQUIA FORTE Fil® te je obavljena SEM analiza uzoraka. Materijali i metode: Uzorci za mjerenje tlačne čvrstoće pripremljeni su s pomoću silikonskih kalupa dimenzija 6 mm u visinu i 4 mm u širinu te su pet dana bili pohranjeni u deioniziranoj vodi, a uzorci za mjerenje tvrdoće pripremljeni su s pomoću teflonskih kalupa dimenzija 2 mm u visinu i 5 mm u širinu i zatim pohranjeni 25 dana u vodi na temperaturi od 37 stupnjeva. Reprezentativni uzorak svakog materijala podvrgnut je SEM ikroskopiji. Za usporedbu dobivenih vrijednosti korišten je ANOVA-test, a za višestruku usporedbu Tukeyev test. Rezultati: Nema značajnije razlike između tlačne čvrstoće triju ispitivanih materijala (p < 0,05), a dobivene vrijednosti tvrdoće iznosile su: Ketac™ Universal Aplicap™ – 157 HV0,2, EQUIA Fil® – 47 HV0,2 i EQUIA FORTE Fil® – 39 HV0,2. Zaključak: Promatrajući dobivene rezultate tvrdoće uočavaju se značajno veće vrijednosti za materijal Ketac™ Universal Aplicap™. SEM analiza uzoraka nije otkrila značajnije razlike u strukturi ispitivanih materijala EQUIA FORTE Fil® , EQUIA Fil® i Ketac™ Univesal Aplicap™.

Ključne riječi
staklenoionomerni cement, tlačna čvrstoća, tvrdoća, SEM

Hrčak ID: 220898

URI
https://hrcak.srce.hr/220898

▼ Article Information



Introduction

The ideal in developing new restorative materials in dental medicine is achieving appropriate biological, mechanical and esthetic properties. Glass ionomer cements (GIC) were introduced into dental practice during the 1970s of the last century (1). The GICs are made of powder and liquid; the powder consists of calcium-aluminum fluorosilicate glass and the liquid is 35-65% polyacrylic acid (2). The improvements of physical-mechanical properties over the past decades have resulted in their application in various areas: restorative dentistry, pediatric dentistry, endodontic surgery, postendodontic tooth restoration, atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) and dental prosthetics (3 - 6).

The GICs are bioactive materials. They have the ability to release fluoride (7), which is believed to enhance the remineralization of hard tooth tissue and prevent secondary caries. The degree of fluoride release is furthermore influenced by the composition and storing methods of the material (8). For instance, incorporation of Nano-sized particles can further enhance the fluoride release (9).

Because of their chemical composition, they connect directly with the enamel and the dentin by achieving a chemical bond with hard tooth tissue. There are many different types of GICs; the basic ones are conventional, light-curing and hybrid glass ionomer cements. Conventional GICs are divided into high-viscosity and low-viscosity GICs according to the proportion of powder and liquid part and the amount of Ca + and Al3 + ions. Hybrid materials based on GIC technology have been modified with glass particles of different sizes. This feature significantly affects physical and mechanical properties of the material (10). Furthermore, it is considered that by applying a Nano-protective coating (micro-laminated technique), the properties of the material improve (11). Hybrid (EQUIA FORTE Fil®) and high-viscosity (EQUIA Fil®) materials are clinically applied for permanent restorations by micro-laminated technique. Ketac ™ Universal Aplicap ™ is a high-viscosity GIC not combined with coating agent. Mechanical properties of GIC materials are usually estimated by compressive strength and hardness measurements, and are associated with the microstructure of the material (12). Various techniques may be used to analyze the material structure. The scanning electron microscopy (SEM) proved to be the most acceptable procedure for inspecting the surface of materials, particle size and porosity (13); these elements give significant insight into the properties of GICs and are, therefore, suitable for this study (14).

The aim of this research was to determine the mechanical properties of two types of materials: hybrid and high-viscosity glass ionomeric cements. The zero hypothesis was that there would be no differences in compressive strength, hardness and fracture modes between the tested materials

Materials and methods

Examined materials and preparation of specimens

The materials used in this study are listed in Table 1. The materials belong to the group of encapsulated GIC systems; hence each capsule was prepared in the mixer 3M ™ ESPE ™ CapMixTM (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) for eight seconds, according to the manufacturer's instructions.

Table 1 The results of compressive strength and hardness of tested materials
EQUIA Fil® EQUIA FORTE Fil® Ketac™ Universal Aplicap™, ANOVA
average st.d. average st.d. average st.d. p
Maximum force (N) 1259.7 (635.9) 1277.3 (695.2) 1046.4 (519.2) 0.66
Compressive strength (N/mm2) 97.6 (49.1) 99.6 (53.6) 80.0 (38.7) 0.60
Hardness (HV0,2) 47 39 157

EQUIA Fil® and EQUIA FORTE Fil® belong to the group of micro-laminated GICs, while Ketac ™ Universal Aplicap ™ is regarded as a conventional high-viscosity material. Micro-laminated GICs are materials of newer generation with improved properties and, according to manufacturers, the first GICs that can be used to create durable fillings in posterior region (15). No protective coating was used during sample testing and the specimens were not lit by a polymerization lamp. Sample dimensions and method of preparation for testing both properties were made according to other relevant studies (16, 17). One measurement for each sample was performed by an independent researcher at the Department of Materials at the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture of the University of Zagreb.

Compressive strength test specimens were prepared using a silicone mold with standard dimensions of 6 mm x 4 mm. The mold was placed on a glass tile and filled with material immediately after capsule mixing and covered with the acetate foil. Lightweight pressure was applied to the surface of the foil to prevent bubble formation and to achieve smooth surface (18). After three minutes, foil, tile and excess material were removed, and the specimen was then polished with standard metallographic grinding paper (P1000, Pace Technologies, and Tucson, USA) and stored in deionized water for five days at 37 ° C water temperature.

For the determination of hardness of the materials, specimens were prepared using Teflon molds with a cylindrical opening in the middle, dimensions 2 mm in height and 5 mm in width. For each material, one sample was made (n = 1). The molds were placed on glass tile covered with acetate foil and filled with the tested GIC. The mold was then covered with acetate foil on the other side and put under light pressure by using a glass tile. After curing for 3 minutes, glass tiles, acetate foil and excess material were removed and the specimens were stored in deionized water for 25 days at 37 ° C water temperature.

SEM analysis was used for one specimen of each test material (n = 1). The specimens were prepared in Teflon molds with a cylindrical opening in the middle, dimension 2 mm in height and 5 mm in width. After curing for three minutes, the specimens were ground and polished. They were ground with standard metallographic grinding paper, Pace Technologies, Tucson, USA, from rough to finer - P320, P500, P1000, P2400, and P4000 - with water cooling. The speed was 300 revolutions per minute and the pressure force was equal to the manual force. The specimens were polished with diamond pasta 3 um and 1 um in two steps at a speed of 150 rpm and a force of 30 N pressure. Prior to analysis, all specimens were cooled and lubricated.

Determination of compressive strength, hardness and SEM analysis

The compressive strength was measured in a VEB device (WPM Werkstoffprüfsysteme Leipzig GmbH, Markkleeberg, Germany; EU 40 mod., Serial number 83/35) at a temperature of 24.5 ° C with a load speed of 20 N / sec. 10 specimens of each material were prepared (n = 10). The average dimensions of the specimens used to determine the compressive strength are approximately 6 mm in height and 4 mm in width (ISO Standard ISO9917-1). Prior to placing the specimens in the testing machine, their dimensions were measured by a micrometer with a precision of 0.01 mm. The compressive strength (RH) was calculated according to the formula

ASC_53(2)_125-131-e1.jpg

where FH is the maximum force due to the sample fracture, S0 the cross-sectional area of the sample, and d the width of the sample.

Hardness was measured using PMT-3 device (OKB Spectr, Sankt-Peterburg, Russia). A Vickers method with a load of 0.2 x 9.81 N was used, which corresponds to the HV0,2 method.

The Vega electron microscope (Tescan, Brno, Czech Republic) was used to determine the microstructure of each tested specimen.

Statistical Analysis

ANOVA test, usually used to analyze the differences among group means in a sample, was used to compare the value of the different types of filling, while the Tukey's test was used for multiple comparisons. The analysis was made using the SAS statistical package, a software application for statistical analysis, on the Windows platform. All the tests were performed with level of significance α = 0.05.

Results

The results of the compressive strength and hardness measurements are shown in Table 1. Maximum Force (FH) was used to calculate the compressive strength. The difference in compressive strength between the tested materials was not statistically significant. On the other hand, Ketac™ Universal Aplicap ™ hardness values were significantly higher than the ones measured for EQUIA Fil ® and EQUIA FORTE Fil ® GIC.

The SEM analysis of the structure showed similar cohesive cracks in all tested specimens. (Figures 1a, 1b and 1c{ label needed for fig[@id='f1b'] }{ label needed for fig[@id='f1c'] }), showing the need for further material improvements.

Figure 1a SEM image of Ketac ™ Universal Aplicap ™ GIC sample surface (200x)
ASC_53(2)_125-131-f1a
{ label needed for fig[@id='f1b'] }
Figure 1b SEM image of Equia FORTE Fil® GIC sample surface (200x)
ASC_53(2)_125-131-f1b
{ label needed for fig[@id='f1c'] }
Figure 1c SEM image of Equia Fil® GIC sample surface (200x)
ASC_53(2)_125-131-f1c

Discussion

It is believed that the information about compressive strength and hardness of the material can give insight into their mechanical integrity. Moreover, the compressive strength results ​​are often used to estimate the durability of the material when exposed to masticatory forces (19). Although it might be very interesting from clinical perspective to compare the values exhibited by the materials in our research with other restorative materials, it is very hard to do so because of different experimental settings. The obtained results showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the compressive strength of the tested materials, thus the first null hypothesis was confirmed.

Specimens of standard dimensions of 6 mm x 4 mm according to ISO 9917-1 were used in this study. There are other standardized systems such as ANSI / ADA Specification No. 66, which prepare specimens of larger dimensions. Mallman et al. (16) have demonstrated that specimens with larger dimensions exhibit better mechanical properties. However, larger size specimens have the potential for creating irregular structures (16). For this reason, in this study, smaller specimens were used to ensure a good material structure. The mixing behavior affects the structure of the material. The examined materials come into the market in capsulated form. Such packaging, apart from facilitating clinical use, reduces the possibility of mistakes when mixing the material. In this study the compressive strength of capsulated GIC was tested, which according to the manufacturer can be used for definite restorations. The storage time of the specimens was five days, due to the fact that immediately after mixing GICs have weak mechanical properties until they mature (20). In this study, lower compressive strength values ​​were obtained compared to the manufacturer's claims (21, 22). A possible explanation for the obtained values ​​was that the specimens were stored in deionized water and that ions were released into the fluid possibly leading to lower values ​​for all the tested materials (23). The influence of early water uptake on GIC materials tends to be reduced by applying protective coatings. Despite the manufacturer's recommendation for Equia Fill® and Equia FORTE Fil®, the materials were tested without application of protective coating, which could have also lead to the results which are inferior to those obtained by the manufacturer (24). The results of this study have shown that Ketac ™ Universal Aplicap ™ has higher hardness values ​​compared to EQUIA Fil® and EQUIA Forte Fil®, therefore the second null hypothesis that there is no difference in hardness between hybrid and high-viscosity GICs has been rejected.

Brinell, Rockwell, Shore, Vickers and Knoop test methods (25) can be used to measure the hardness of dental materials. Although the Knoop’s method is most commonly used method, due to availability of equipment, the Vickers test method was used in this study, which was also used in other relevant studies (26, 27). It is interesting that both bulk fill systems, EQUIA Fil® and EQUIA FORTE Fil®, had lower hardness values. Therefore, it can be concluded that the application of protective coating on these materials is mandatory in order to achieve the hardness comparable to other GIC materials (28). The manufacturer recommends a Nano punctured light-curing resin-based coating. It is stated that the coating, due to its low viscosity, fills the micro-gaps in the GICs structure. In this way, the improved surface better tolerates the impact of the masticatory forces and protects against erosion (29). Furthermore, the manufacturer claims that this protective coating reduces the wear of GIC when used in restorations in posterior region (29).

The influence of all the forces acting on the specimens reflects on their microstructure and fracture modes. SEM analysis showed cohesive cracks in all examined specimens which is in accordance with data from the literature (30). This may be due to the dehydration of the specimens which is necessary in preparations for SEM analysis (9). Thus, the third null hypothesis that there was no difference in the fracture modes of hybrid and high-viscosity materials was accepted. Despite the continuous development of the materials and the improvement of their properties, imperfections such as cohesive fractures are yet to be eliminated. This fact is confirmed by this research, using the newest materials on the market. That is a clinically important feature because it shows that the material and tooth bond is stable, and in a minimally invasive concept of restoration it is more important that, if a fracture occurs, the restorative material is affected, not the tooth.

As this is an in vitro study, the oral conditions could not be completely simulated. However, all the samples were exposed to the same experimental conditions. Within the limitations of this study, a good insight into material endurance was given, but the absolute values of the mechanical properties recorded must be interpreted with respect to the experimental conditions.

Conclusion

There was no significant difference in compressive strength between the tested materials. The hardness values were significantly higher for Ketac™ Universal Aplicap ™ compared with EQUIA Fil® and EQUIA FORTE Fil® materials, which probably came as a result of not using the recommended protective coating when preparing the EQUIA Fil® and EQUIA FORTE Fil® samples. SEM analysis showed similar microstructure and fracture modes of the three tested materials, justifying their use in in a minimally invasive concept of restoration.

Notes

[1] Conflicts of interest The authors report no conflict of interest.

References

1 

Wilson AD, Kent BE. A new translucent cement for dentistry. The glass ionomer cement. Br Dent J. 1972 Feb 15;132(4):133–5. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4802810 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4501690

2 

McLean JW, Nicholson JW, Wilson AD. Proposed nomenclature for glass-ionomer dental cements and related materials. Quintessence Int. 1994 Sep;25(9):587–9. PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7568709

3 

Jukić Krmek S. Pretklinička endodoncija. 1st ed. Zagreb: Medicinska naklada; 2017. pp. 149-54.

4 

Bonifacio, et al. Physical-mechanical properties of glass ionomer cements indicated for atraumatic restorative treatment. Dent Clin North Am. 2010 Jul;54(3):551–63. PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20630196

5 

Ngo H. Glass-ionomer cements as restorative and preventive materials. Dent Clin North Am. 2010 Jul;54(3):551–63. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2010.04.001 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20630196

6 

De Bruyne MA, De Moor RJ. The use of glass ionomer cements in both conventional and surgical endodontics. Int Endod J. 2004 Feb;37(2):91–104. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0143-2885.2004.00769.x PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14871175

7 

Forsten L. Fluoride release and uptake by glass-ionomers and related materials and its clinical effect. Biomaterials. 1998 Mar;19(6):503–8. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(97)00130-0 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9645556

8 

Brzović-Rajić V, Miletić I, Gurgan S, Peroš K, Verzak Ž, Ivanišević-Malčić A. Fluoride Release from Glass Ionomer with Nano Filled Coat and Varnish. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2018;52(4):307–13. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15644/asc52/4/4 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30666061

9 

Zafar MS, Ahmed N. Therapeutic roles of fluoride released from restorative dental materials. Fluoride. 2015;48:184–94.

10 

Najeeb S, Khurshid Z, Zafar MS, Khan AS, Zohaib S, et al. Modifications in Glass Ionomer Cements: Nano-Sized Fillers and Bioactive Nanoceramics. Int J Mol Sci. 2016 Jul 14;17(7) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms17071134 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27428956

11 

De Caluwé T, Vercruysse CW, Fraeyman S, Verbeeck RM. The influence of particle size and fluorine content of aluminosilicate glass on the glass ionomer cement properties. Dent Mater. 2014 Sep;30(9):1029–38. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.06.003 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25002141

12 

Diem VT, Tyas MJ, Ngo HC, Phuong LH, Khanh ND. The effect of a nano-filled resin coating on the 3-year clinical performance of a conventional high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement. Clin Oral Investig. 2014 Apr;18(3):753–9. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-1026-z PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23832616

13 

Xie D, Brantley WA, Culbertson BM, Wang G. Mechanical properties and microstructures of glass-ionomer cements. Dent Mater. 2000 Mar;16(2):129–38. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(99)00093-7 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11203534

14 

Swift EJ Jr, Dogan AU. Analysis of glass ionomer cement with use of scanning electron microscopy. J Prosthet Dent. 1990 Aug;64(2):167–74. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(90)90173-A PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2118180

15 

Miletić I, Anić I, Bago I, Baraba A. Stakleno-ionomerni cementi. Vjesnik dentalne medicine. 2011;18(4):15-20.

16 

Mallmann A, Ataíde JC, Amoedo R, Rocha PV, Jacques LB. Compressive strength of glass ionomer cements using different specimen dimensions. Braz Oral Res. 2007;21(3):204–8. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1806-83242007000300003 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17710284

17 

Roche, Kevin J. and Kenneth T. Stanton. “Improving mechanical properties of glass ionomer cements with fluorhydroxyapatite nanoparticles.” (2012).

18 

Miličević A, Goršeta K, van Duinen RN, Glavina D. Surface Roughness of Glass Ionomer Cements after Application of Different Polishing Techniques. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2018;52(4):314–21. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15644/asc52/4/5 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30666062

19 

Sukumaran VG, Mensudar R. To Evaluate the Effect of Surface Coating on Three Different Types Glass Ionomer Restorations. Biomed Pharmacol J. 2015;8:445–9. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13005/bpj/720

20 

Kleverlaan CJ, van Duinen RN, Feilzer AJ. Mechanical properties of glass ionomer cements affected by curing methods. Dent Mater. 2004 Jan;20(1):45–50. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(03)00067-8 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14698773

21 

MeSH Browser [database on the Internet]. Ketac™ Universal Aplicap ™ Glass Ionomer Restorative Technical Product. [cited 2018 Apr 24] Available from: multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/1090408O/ketac-universal-aplicap-technical-product profile-pdf.pdf.

22 

MeSH Browser [database on the Internet]. EQUIA® Forte bulk fill, fluoride releasing glass hybrid restorative system. [cited 2018 Apr 24] Available from: http://www.gcamerica.com/ products/operatory/EQUIA_Forte/EQUIA_Forte_Sell_Sheet_US2016-iPad.pdf.

23 

Gorseta K, Glavina D, Skrinjaric T, Czarnecka B, Nicholson JW. The effect of petroleum jelly, light-cured varnish and different storage media on the flexural strength of glass ionomer dental cements. Acta Biomater Odontol Scand. 2016 Mar 29;2(1):55–9. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/23337931.2016.1160784 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28642913

24 

Lohbauer U, Krämer N, Siedschlag G, Schubert EW, Lauerer B, Müller FA, et al. Strength and wear resistance of a dental glass-ionomer cement with a novel nanofilled resin coating. Am J Dent. 2011;24(2):124–8. PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21698994

25 

Baloch F, Mirza A, Baloch D. An in-vitro study to compare the microhardness of glass ionomer cement set conventionally versus set under ultrasonic waves. Int J Health Sci (Qassim). 2010 Nov;4(2):149–55. PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21475553

26 

Bala O, Arisu HD, Yikilgan I, Arslan S, Gullu A. Evaluation of surface roughness and hardness of different glass ionomer cements. Eur J Dent. 2012 Jan;6(1):79–86. PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22229011

27 

Shintome LK, Nagayassu MP, Di Nicoló R, Myaki SI. Microhardness of glass ionomer cements indicated for the ART technique according to surface protection treatment and storage time. Braz Oral Res. 2009 Oct-Dec;23(4):439–45. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1806-83242009000400014 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20027452

28 

Hankins AD, Hatch RH, Benson JH, Blen BJ, Tantbirojn D, Versluis A. The effect of a nanofilled resin-based coating on water absorption by teeth restored with glass ionomer. J Am Dent Assoc. 2014;145(4):363–70. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14219/jada.2043.3 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24686970

29 

MeSH Browser [database on the Internet]. GC America. G-Coat Plus nanofilled, self-adhesive, light-cured protective coating. [cited 2018 Apr 24] Available from: www.gcamerica.com/products/operatory/G-Coat_Plus/ GCoatPlus_Product Brochure.pdf.

30 

Ngo H, Mount GJ, Peters MC. A study of glass-ionomer cement and its interface with enamel and dentin using a low-temperature, high-resolution scanning electron microscopic technique. Quintessence Int. 1997 Jan;28(1):63–9. PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10332357


This display is generated from NISO JATS XML with jats-html.xsl. The XSLT engine is libxslt.

[engleski]

Posjeta: 106 *