2 resultados para ionomer glass cements
em Bioline International
Resumo:
Aim: To assess in vitro the surface roughness (Ra), Vickers hardness (VHN) and surface morphology of resin and glass ionomer materials used for sealants after dynamic erosive challenge. Methods: Twenty specimens of each material were prepared and divided into experimental (erosive challenge) and control groups (n=10): Protect Riva (SDI), Opallis Flow (3M ESPE), Fluroshield (Dentsply), Filtek Z350 XT Flow (3M ESPE). The erosive challenge was performed 4 times per day (90 s) in cola drink and for 2 h in artificial saliva for 7 days. The control specimens were maintained in artificial saliva. Ra and VHN readings were performed before and after erosion. The percentage of hardness loss (%VHN) was obtained after erosion. The surface morphology was evaluated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The data were analyzed by ANOVA, Tukey and paired t tests (α=0.05). Results: After erosion and saliva immersion, there was an increase in Ra values for all groups and Riva group showed the highest Ra values. After erosive challenge, Riva and Filtek groups showed significant decrease in VHN values, but Filtek group showed the greatest %VHN. For all groups there was inorganic particle protrusion and matrix degradation after erosion visualized by SEM images. Conclusions: Erosive challenge affected the surface properties of all materials used as sealants, particularly in the Riva and Filtek groups.
Resumo:
Aim: To evaluate the clinical performance of a composite resin (CR) and a resin-modified glassionomer cement (RMGIC) for the treatment of abfraction lesions. Methods: Thirty patients with abfraction lesions in at least two premolar teeth were selected and invited to participate in this study. All restorations were made within the same clinical time frame. One tooth was restored with CR Z100TM (3M, St. Paul, MN, USA), and the other was restored with RMGIC VitremerTM (3M). The restorations were assessed immediately and 1, 6 and 12 months after the restoration, using modified US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria: marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, wear, retention, secondary caries and hypersensitivity. The statistical analysis was based on Friedman ANOVA test and Mann-Whitney test, considering p<0.05 for statistical significance. Results: Both materials demonstrated satisfactory clinical performance after one year. In the individual analysis of each material, there was a significant difference (p<0.05) in the criteria marginal integrity and wear, for both CR and RMGIC. RMGIC exhibited more damage one year after the restoration. Comparing both materials, it was found a significant difference only for marginal discoloration, while the RMGIC restorations showed the worst prognosis after a year of evaluation. There was no significant difference in the number of retentions, caries or hypersensitivity between CR and RMGIC. Conclusions: It was concluded that CR exhibited the best clinical performance according to the cost-effectiveness and evaluation criteria used in this study.