SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İnönü üniversitesi Sağlık Hizmetleri Meslek Yüksek Okulu Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 1

EVALUATION OF THE SHEAR BOND STRENGTH, MICROLEAKAGE AND COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF REINFORCED GLASS IONOMER CEMENTS USED AS PERMANENT RESTORATİVE MATERİALS

DAİMİ RESTORATİF MATERYAL OLARAK KULLANILAN GÜÇLENDİRİLMİŞ CAM İYONOMER SİMANLARIN MAKASLAMA BAĞLANMA DAYANIMLARI,MİKROSIZINTI VE BASMA DAYANIMLARININ DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Seda Nur KARAKAŞ
Hacer TURGUT
Pages
41–54
Publication Date
2021-03-25
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Reinforced glass ionomer cements have been determined to have similar and better mechanical properties than composite resin in all the tests except the shear bond strength test.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, it is aimed to compare the usage of reinforced glass ionomer materials such as high viscosity glass ionomer and giomer as a permanent restorative material with the composite resin in terms of the mechanical properties.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For the shear bond strength test; 48, and for the microleakage test; 27 extracted third molar teeth were used.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Reinforced glass ionomer cements have been determined to have similar and better mechanical properties than composite resin in all the tests except the shear bond strength test.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:30 samples
⚙️Variables:basma dayanımı kuvveti · güçlendirilmiş cam iyonomer simanlar · makaslama bağlanma kuvveti

Abstract

In this study, it is aimed to compare the usage of reinforced glass ionomer materials such as high viscosity glass ionomer and giomer as a permanent restorative material with the composite resin in terms of the mechanical properties. In our study, three groups were used: Equia Forte, Beautifil II and Solare X. For the shear bond strength test; 48, and for the microleakage test; 27 extracted third molar teeth were used. A total of 30 samples were prepared for the compressive strength test. Shear and compressive strength tests were performed by using universal test devices. Standard class V cavities were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of the tooth for the microleakage test. Thermal cycling (5-55oCx10.000) was applied to the restored teeth. According to the statistical analysis, difference was found between all groups in the shear bond strength, compressive strength and microleakage tests (p<0.05). Solare X has showed the highest shear bond strength. Equia Forte has showed the lowest value in the microleakage test. Beautifil II has showed the highest compressive strength. Reinforced glass ionomer cements have been determined to have similar and better mechanical properties than composite resin in all the tests except the shear bond strength test.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, yüksek viskoziteli cam iyonomer ve giomer gibi güçlendirilmiş cam iyonomer malzemelerin daimi bir restoratif materyal olarak kullanımının kompozit rezin ile mekanik özellikler açısından karşılaştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Çalışmamızda üç grup kullanıldı: Equia Forte, Beautifil II ve Solare X. Makaslama bağlanma kuvveti testi için 48 tane ve mikrosızıntı testi için 27 tane çekilmiş üçüncü azı dişi kullanıldı. Basma dayanımı testi için toplam 30 numune hazırlandı. Makaslama ve basma dayanımı testleri, evrensel test cihazları kullanılarak yapıldı. Mikrosızıntı testi için dişin bukkal ve lingual yüzeylerinde standart sınıf V kaviteler hazırlandı. Restore edilen dişlere termal siklus (5-55oC x 10.000) uygulandı. İstatistiksel analize göre; makaslama bağlanma dayanımı, basma dayanımı ve mikrosızıntı testlerinde tüm gruplar arasında fark bulundu (p <0.05). Solare X, en yüksek makaslama bağlanma kuvveti göstermiştir. Equia Forte, mikrosızıntı testinde en düşük değeri göstermiştir. Beautifil II, en yüksek basma dayanımını göstermiştir. Güçlendirilmiş cam iyonomer simanların, makaslama bağ mukavemeti testi dışındaki tüm testlerde kompozit rezine benzer ve daha iyi mekanik özelliklere sahip olduğu tespit edilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

KARAKAŞ, S. N., TURGUT, H. (2021). EVALUATION OF THE SHEAR BOND STRENGTH, MICROLEAKAGE AND COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF REINFORCED GLASS IONOMER CEMENTS USED AS PERMANENT RESTORATİVE MATERİALS. İnönü üniversitesi Sağlık Hizmetleri Meslek Yüksek Okulu Dergisi, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 1, 41–54. https://ajindex.com/articles/717164

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Al-Dahan, Z. A., Al-Attar, A. I., Al-Rubaee, H. E. (2012). A comparative study evaluating the microleakage of different types of restorative materials used in restoration of pulpotomized primary molars. Journal of Baghdad College of Dentistry, 24(2), 150-154.
  2. Almuammar, M., Schulman, A., Salama, F. (2001). Shear bond strength of six restorative materials. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry, 25(3), 221-225.
  3. Araujo, R. M., de Paula Eduardo, C., Duarte Junior, S. L. L., Araujo, M. A. M., de Castro Monteiro Loffredo, L. (2001). Microleakage and nanoleakage: influence of laser in cavity preparation and dentin pretreatment. Journal Of Clinical Laser Medicine & Surgery, 19(6), 325-332.
  4. Basting, R., Serra, M., Rodrigues, A. (2002). In situ microhardness evaluation of glass–ionomer/composite resin hybrid materials at different post‐irradiation times. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, 29(12), 1187-1195. Bonifácio, C., Kleverlaan, C., Raggio, D. P., Werner, A., De Carvalho, R., Van Amerongen, W. (2009). Physical‐mechanical properties of glass ionomer cements indicated for atraumatic restorative treatment. Australian Dental Journal, 54(3), 233-237.
  5. Carvalho, T. S., van Amerongen, W. E., de Gee, A., Bönecker, M., Sampaio, F. C. (2011). Shear bond strengths of three glass ionomer cements to enamel and dentine. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal, 16(3), e406-410. Chen, C. C., Huang, T. H., Kao, C. T., Ding, S. J. (2006). Effect of conditioners on bond durability of resin composite to Nd: YAP laser-irradiated dentin. Dental Materials Journal, 25(3), 463-469.
  6. Croll, T. P., Nicholson, J. (2002). Glass ionomer cements in pediatric dentistry: review of the literature. Pediatric Dentistry, 24(5), 423-429.
  7. Deliperi, S., Bardwell, D. N., Wegley, C., Congiu, M. D. (2006). In vitro evaluation of giomers microleakage after exposure to 33% hydrogen peroxide: self-etch vs total-etch adhesives. Operative Dentistry, 31(2), 227-232.
  8. Dionysopoulos, D., Koliniotou-Koumpia, E., Helvatzoglou-Antoniades, M., Kotsanos, N. (2013). Fluoride release and recharge abilities of contemporary fluoride-containing restorative materials and dental adhesives. Dental Materials Journal, 32(2), 296-304.
  9. Gjorgievska, E., Van Tendeloo, G., Nicholson, J. W., Coleman, N. J., Slipper, I. J., Booth, S. (2015). The incorporation of nanoparticles into conventional glass-ionomer dental restorative cements. Microscopy and Microanalysis, 21(2), 392-406.
  10. Gopinath, V. K. (2017). Comparative evaluation of microleakage betw