Home  About us  Contact
 

Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement (resin-modified + glass_ionomer_cement)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Medical Sciences100%

Selected Abstracts

Modified Class II open sandwich restorations: evaluation of interfacial adaptation and influence of different restorative techniques

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORAL SCIENCES, Issue 3 2002
Ingrid E. Andersson-Wenckert
The sandwich technique with resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) has been proposed to relieve the contraction stresses of direct resin composite (RC) restorations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the interfacial adaptation to enamel and dentin of modified Class II open RMGIC/RC sandwich restorations and the influence of different light curing techniques and matrix bands. Forty box-shaped Class II fillings were placed in vivo in premolars scheduled for extraction after one month. In groups I and II, a metal matrix was used; RC was inserted with horizontal (group I) and diagonal (group II) increments and cured with indirect/direct light. Group III was performed as group II, but a transparent matrix was used. Group IV was as group II, but with a separating liner between RMGIC and RC. Group V was a closed sandwich restoration. Interfacial quality was studied using SEM replica technique. Gap-free interfacial adaptation to enamel was observed for RMGIC in 70%, for RC in 70% and to dentin for RMGIC in 81%, for RC in 56%. No significant differences were seen between the experimental groups. At the cervical margins, RMGIC showed significantly better adaptation to enamel than RC, 74% and 42%, respectively. In conclusion, the investigated restorations showed a high percentage of gap-free interfacial adaptation in vivo. Interfacial adaptation to dentin and to cervical enamel was significantly better for RMGIC than for RC. [source]

Shear bond strength of luting agents to fixed prosthodontic restorative core materials

AUSTRALIAN DENTAL JOURNAL, Issue 4 2009
N Capa
Abstract Background:, Bonding properties of luting cements are important for retention of restorative core materials. The aim of this study was to compare the bonding performance of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement and a self-adhesive resin cement to various fixed prosthodontic core materials. Methods:, Cylindrical specimens with a thickness of 2 mm and a diameter of 5 mm were fabricated from Au-Pd-Ag, Co-Cr, Ni-Cr-Mo, Ni-Cr-Fe alloys, titanium, zirconia and Empress II (n = 20). Each group was divided into two subgroups to be luted with two different luting agents. Composite resin blocks were cemented onto specimens with RelyXUnicem and FujiCem. A shear bond strength machine with 50 kg load cell and 0.50 mm/min crosshead speed was used. Kruskal Wallis test, Dunn's Multiple Range test and Mann-Whitney-U test were used for statistical analysis. The results were evaluated in a confidence interval of p < 0.05. Results:, The highest bond strength was obtained between Ni-Cr-Fe-RelyXUnicem (8.22 ± 2.15 MPa) and the lowest was between Empress II-FujiCem (1.48 ± 0.9 MPa). In FujiCem groups, Co-Cr and Ni-Cr-Fe showed significantly higher bond strength than Au-Pd-Ag and Empress II. In RelyX Unicem groups, Ni-Cr-Fe showed higher bond strength than Empress II. Conclusions:, The types of luting agents and restorative core materials may have a significant influence on bond strength. [source]

Class II restorations in primary teeth: 7-year study on three resin-modified glass ionomer cements and a compomer

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORAL SCIENCES, Issue 2 2004
V. Qvist
The aim of this randomized study was to compare the longevity and cariostatic effects of 1565 class II restorations in primary teeth placed by 15 clinicians in the Danish Public Dental Health Service in 971 children, aged 3.6,14.9 yr. The restorations were performed using three resin-modified glass ionomer cements and one compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin) with and without their respective cavity conditioners. The restorations were in contact with 1023 unrestored proximal surfaces in 853 primary and 170 permanent teeth. The study was terminated after 7 yr with 1% of the restorations in function, 7% patient dropouts, 18% failed restorations, and operative treatment on 24% of the adjacent surfaces. Multivariate survival analyses showed that the restorative material and cavity conditioning influenced the survival of restorations but not the progression of caries on adjacent surfaces. The 50% survival times were estimated to exceed 5 yr for the restorations and 4.5 yr for the adjacent unfilled surfaces in all treatment groups. It was concluded that resin-modified glass ionomer cement and compomer are both appropriate materials for class II restorations in primary teeth. The differences in longevity and cariostatic effects among the four materials used with and without conditioner were less than the intra-individual differences between clinicians. [source]