Halogen lamp and led activation of resin-modified glass ionomer restorative material. In vitro microhardness after long term storage

AIM: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the activation of resin-modified glass ionomer restorative material (RMGI, Vitremer-3M-ESPE, A3) by halogen lamp (QTH) or light-emitting diode (LED) by Knoop microhardness (KHN) in two storage conditions: 24hrs and 6 months and in two depths (0 and 2 mm). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The specimens were randomly divided into 3 experimental groups (n=10) according to activation form and evaluated in depth after 24h and after 6 months of storage. Activation was performed with QTH for 40s (700 mW/cm2) and for 40 or 20 s with LED (1,200 mW/scm2). After 24 hrs and 6 months of storage at 37°C in relative humidity in lightproof container, the Knoop microhardness test was performed. Statistics Data were analysed by three-way ANOVA and Tukey post-tests (p<0.05). RESULTS: All evaluated factors showed significant differences (p<0.05). After 24 hrs there were no differences within the experimental groups. KHN at 0 mm was significantly higher than 2 mm. After 6 months, there was an increase of microhardness values for all groups, being the ones activated by LED higher than the ones activated by QTH. CONCLUSION: Light-activation with LED positively influenced the KHN for RMGI evaluated after 6 months.

The bonding of glass ionomer cements to caries-affected primary tooth dentin

PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to evaluate the bonding of glass ionomer cements (GICs) to sound and caries-affected dentin by microtensile bond strength (μTBS) and nanoleakage (NL) tests. METHODS Occlusal cavity preparations were made in 36 sound primary molars. Half of the specimens were submitted to a pH-cycling model to create simulated caries-affected dentin. Teeth were randomly restored with one of the three materials: (1) resin-modified GIC with nanoparticles (Ketac N100; KN); (2) resin-modified GIC (Vitremer; VI); and (3) high-viscosity GIC (Ketac Molar Easy Mix; KM). Specimens were tested using a microtensile test (1 mm/minute). One specimen from each tooth was immersed in ammoniacal silver nitrate for 24 hours and revealed after eight hours to assess interfacial NL. The μTBS means were analyzed by 2-way analysis of variance and Tukey's post hoc test. For NL, Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests were used (P<.05). RESULTS No difference was found between sound and caries-affected dentin (P>.05). KM showed the lowest GIC-dentin μTBS values, while VI and KN showed higher values. Infiltration of ammoniacal silver nitrate into the adhesive interface was not affected by sound or caries-affected dentin. CONCLUSION Caries-affected dentin does not jeopardize the bonding of glass ionomer cements to primary tooth dentin.

Bonding of restorative materials to dentin with various luting agents

The aim was to compare eight types of luting agents when used to bond six indirect, laboratory restorative materials to dentin. Cylinders of the six restorative materials (Esteticor Avenir [gold alloy], Tritan [titanium], NobelRondo [feldspathic porcelain], Finesse All-Ceramic [leucite-glass ceramic], Lava [zirconia], and Sinfony [resin composite]) were ground and air-abraded. Cylinders of feldspathic porcelain and glass ceramic were additionally etched with hydrofluoric acid and were silane-treated. The cylinders were luted to ground human dentin with eight luting agents (DeTrey Zinc [zinc phosphate cement], Fuji I [conventional glass ionomer cement], Fuji Plus [resin-modified glass ionomer cement], Variolink II [conventional etch-and-rinse resin cement], Panavia F2.0 and Multilink [self-etch resin cements], and RelyX Unicem Aplicap and Maxcem [self-adhesive resin cements]). After water storage at 37°C for one week, the shear bond strength of the specimens (n=8/group) was measured, and the fracture mode was stereomicroscopically examined. Bond strength data were analyzed with two-factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Newman-Keuls' Multiple Range Test (?=0.05). Both the restorative material and the luting agent had a significant effect on bond strength, and significant interaction was noted between the two variables. Zinc phosphate cement and glass ionomer cements produced the lowest bond strengths, whereas the highest bond strengths were found with the two self-etch and one of the self-adhesive resin cements. Generally, the fracture mode varied markedly with the restorative material. The luting agents had a bigger influence on bond strength between restorative materials and dentin than was seen with the restorative material.

Dentinhaftung von Zementen. Der Haftverbund von Zementen mit Dentin in Kombination mit verschiedenen indirekten Restaurationsmaterialien

Einleitung: Die Anzahl zahnärztlicher Zemente sowie Restaurationsmaterialien steigt stetig. Die richtige Zementwahl für einen zuverlässigen Haftverbund zwischen Restaurationsmaterial und Zahnsubstanz ist von Interesse für den Kliniker. Ziel der vorliegenden in vitro-Studie war es daher, den Dentinhaftverbund von verschiedenen Zementen in Kombination mit verschiedenen indirekten Restaurationsmaterialien zu untersuchen. Material und Methoden: Zylindrische Probekörper aus sechs Restaurationsmaterialien (Goldlegierung, Titan, Feldspat-Keramik, Leuzit-Glaskeramik, Zirkon sowie Komposit) wurden an einem Ende plangeschliffen und sandgestrahlt. Die Zylinder aus Feldspat-Keramik und Leuzit-Glaskeramik wurden zusätzlich mit Flusssäure geätzt und silanisiert. Die Zylinder wurden anschliessend mit acht Zementen auf plangeschliffenes Dentin extrahierter menschlicher Zähne zementiert (ein Zink-Phosphatzement (DeTrey Zinc), ein konventioneller Glasionomerzement (Fuji I), ein kunststoffmodifizierter Glasionomerzement (Fuji Plus), ein "etch-&-rinse" Kompositzement (Variolink II), zwei "self-etch" Kompositzemente (Panavia F2.0 und Multilink) und zwei "self-adhesive" Kompositzemente (RelyX Unicem Aplicap und Maxcem)). Nach einwöchiger Wasserlagerung bei 37°C wurden die Dentinhaftwerte der Zylinder (n=8 pro Gruppe) mittels Scherkraft-Test gemessen. Zusätzlich wurde das Frakturmuster unter dem Lichtmikroskop bestimmt. Die Haftwerte wurden mittels zweifaktorieller ANOVA und einem post hoc-Test analysiert (Signifikanzniveau α = 0.05). Resultate: Sowohl das Restaurationsmaterial wie auch der Zement hatten einen statistisch signifikanten Effekt auf den Haftverbund. Der Zink-Phosphatzement sowie beide Glasionomerzemente zeigten die niedrigsten Haftwerte. Die höchsten Haftwerte wurden mit beiden "self-etch" und einem der zwei "self-adhesive" Kompositzementen erzielt. Im Allgemeinen variierte das Frakturmuster deutlich je nach Zement und Restaurationsmaterial. Schlussfolgerungen: Der Dentinhaftverbund wurde stärker vom Zement beeinflusst als vom Restaurationsmaterial. Die Kompositzemente erzielten im Grossen und Ganzen die höchsten Haftwerte.