Publications (3)1.75 Total impact
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Changes in the powder-liquid ratio of glass ionomer cements may affect some of its physical properties and acid erosion. The aim of this study was to evaluate the physical properties and acid erosion of two conventional restorative glass ionomer cements against ISO 9917-1:2007 standards after changing the powder-liquid ratio to an adequate consistency for luting indirect restorations. The methodology of ISO Specification 9917-1:2007 was applied to the powder-liquid ratio indicated by the manufacturer and to a modified ratio. Two restorative glass ionomer cements, ChemFil (Ch) (Dentsply) and lonofil Plus (IP) (Voco), were used to evaluate film thickness, compressive strength, net setting time and acid erosion. Thickness was measured three times with a digital micrometer (Digimatic Mitutoyo Corporation). Sample size was five for each cement or condition. Compressive strength (Instron 1011, crosshead speed of 1 mm/min) was evaluated after 24 h immersion in water at 37 degreesC. Sample size was five for each cement or condition. Setting time was evaluated for Ch and IP at 37 degreesC. Sample size was three for each cement or condition. Specimen moulds (30 x 30 x 5 mm) with a central perforation of 5 mm in diameter and 2 mm depth were usedfor acid erosion tests. Erosion depth was measured with a micrometer gauge with a precision of 0. 001 mm, before and after 24-hour immersion in a lactic acid-sodium lactate solution with pH 2.74 at 370C. Sample size wasfivefor each condition. Student's t test was performed with a level of significance ofp< O.05 for each material and condition tested. Arithmetic mean (Standard Deviation). Powder-liquid ratio according to manufacturers: film thickness (in pm): Ch 220 (40), IP: 382 (5); compressive strength (in MPa) at 24 hs: Ch 166.3 (16,6), IP: 100 (10); net setting time (in min.) at 370C: Ch 3.44 (0.3), IP: 5.26 (0.1) ; depth of acid erosion (in mm): Ch 0.15 (0.02), IP: 0.17 (0.02). Modified powder-liquid ratio: film thickness (in pm): Ch 23(1), IP:24(1); compressive strength at 24 hs (in MPa): Ch: 69.3 (14.6), IP: 46.5 (7.4); net setting time (in min.) at 370C: Ch 5.72 (0.1) and IP 9.38 (0.1); depth of acid erosion (in mm): Ch 0.22 (0.02). Data were not recorded for IP because the sample disintegrated in the solution. Student's t test was performed for both materials and conditions with a level of significance of p< 0.05. The difference between each condition tested was statistically significant (p<0.01). While changes in the powder-liquid ratio of a restorative glass ionomer cement can result in some of its properties having values that are not far from those required for luting cements according to ISO specifications, it did not meet the requirements for acid erosion.Acta odontológica latinoamericana: AOL 01/2011; 24(2):200-4.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The final film thickness of a resin adhesive and a resin cement could be affected by previous polymerization of the adhesive systems on dentin surfaces. The aim of this work was to evaluate changes in the film thickness of dual resin based cements with their adhesives as a function of polymerization of the latter on dentin surfaces. The materials used were: RelyX ARC (R) + Single Bond (SB) and Variolink base (VB) and high (HV) or low (LV) viscosity catalyst + Syntac Classic (S) or Excite DSC (E); 56 human dentin discs and 56 composite resin discs (Z250). Dentin disc surfaces were treated with 35% phosphoric acid (except for S) and the adhesive system was either polymerized or not polymerized. A 0.05 ml increment of cement mixture was placed on the dentin disc and covered with the resin disc. A 25 N load was applied for ten minutes and then, the combined thickness was measured with a digital micrometer. Sample size (n) was 4 for each cement or condition. A two-way analysis of variance was performed with a level of significance of p < 0.05. The mean film thickness (and standard deviations) in microm, with and without previous polymerization of the adhesive layer, were: R+SB: 16.50 (2.64) and 17.00 (1.41); VB+S: 21.75 (5.37) and 62.25 (0.95); VB LV+S: 24.50 (3.87) and 72.75 (1.89); VB HV+S: 28.75 (8.46) and 93.00 (53.63); VB+E: 31.75 (8.38) and 42.75 (4.34); VB LV+E: 47.75 (2.50) and 45.75 (3.20); VB HV+E: 49.25 (25.50) and 45.75 (2.75). Significant differences (p < 0.01) were found for the cements and polymerization condition as well as for the interaction between them. Instructions regarding polymerization of the adhesive layer must be followed when adhesive systems are used in combination with dual polymerized resin based cements. Otherwise, final film thickness of the adhesive and the resin cement could be affected.Acta odontológica latinoamericana: AOL 01/2008; 21(1):29-33.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Variations in light-polymerizing parameters, such as light intensity and light-to-material distance, may affect the physical characteristics of polymerized resin. The purpose of this study was to characterize the relation between total light energy and the final hardness of 4 composites polymerized under varying conditions. Four commercial composite restorative resins (Z100, Filtek A110, Tetric Ceram, and Tetric Flow) were used to prepare 4 disk-shaped specimens (6 x 2 mm) for each experimental condition. Photoactivation was carried out with a light device and energy of 22.6, 15.7, 9.0, or 6.7 J/cm(2). Either the light-to-material distance (0, 5, 10, 15 mm) or activation time (40, 28, 16, 12 seconds) was varied. Immediately after polymerization, Barcol hardness was determined on the specimen surface that had been exposed to the light. Analysis of variance (P<.05) and regression analysis were used to examine the data. No significance (P>.05) was found for the overall effect of the experimental variables (polymerization time and distance), but significant differences (P<.01) were found among materials and energy levels. Regression equations for each product and polymerization condition were calculated for hardness as a function of energy. No significant differences were found for slopes within each material. Hardness values were 3.0 to 3.5 for Tetric Ceram, Tetric Flow, and Filtek A110 and approximately 4.9 for Z100. The hardness of the products analyzed was related to the total energy used for activation. The effect was independent of the manner in which the amount of energy was modified (light-to-material distance or activation time).Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 12/2001; 86(6):632-5. DOI:10.1067/mpr.2001.120843 · 1.75 Impact Factor
University of Buenos Aires
Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires F.D., Argentina
- Faculty of Dentistry