Resistance to degradation of resin-modified glass-ionomer cements dentine bonds

Objective: To evaluate the effect of EDTA pre-treatment of dentine on resistance to degradation of the bond between dentine and resin-modified glass-ionomer cements. Methods: Sixty non-carious human molars underwent cavity preparations. Teeth were restored with Fuji II LC or Vitremer. Half of the cavities were restored following manufacturers` instructions whereas the other half was pre-treated with EDTA (0.1 M, pH 7.4) for 60 s. Teeth were stored in water at 37 degrees C for 24 h, 3 months or submitted to 10% NaOCl immersion for 5 h. Teeth were sectioned into beams (1 +/- 0.1 mm) and tested to failure in tension at 0.5 mm/min. Bond strength data (MPa) were analyzed by ANOVA and SNK multiple-comparisons tests (p < 0.05). Results: When EDTA was used for pre-treatment of dentine, higher bond strengths were observed for both cements. Degradation challenges produced a decrease in bond strength values only in the Vitremer group. This decrease was avoided when EDTA was used for dentine treatment before restoring with Vitremer. Conclusions: EDTA pre-treatment of dentine increases bond strength of resin modified glass-ionomers cements to dentine and improves resistance to degradation of the bond between Vitremer and dentine. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Fracture resistance of Class II glass-ionomer cement restorations

Purpose: To investigate in vitro the effect of retentive grooves, GIC type and insertion method on the fracture resistance of Class II glass-ionomer cement (GIC) restorations. Methods: Premolars were divided into 12 groups (n=10) according to three variables: retentive grooves [presence (PR) or absence AR)], GICs type [Ketac-Molar (KM), Fuji VIII (F8) and RelyX Luting (RX)], and insertion method [syringe injector (SI) or spoon excavator (SE)]. The specimens were subjected to fracture resistance test. Data were submitted to three-way ANOVA and multiple comparisons were performed using a Tukey test (P < 0.05). Results: Mean fracture resistance values (Kgf) +/- standard deviations (SD) were: KM (PR+SI) 65.66 +/- 2.5; KM (PR+SE) = 62.58 +/- 2.1; KM (AR+SI) = 57.11 +/- 1.9; KM (AR+SE) = 51.94 +/- 2.3; F8 (PR+SI) = 63.05 +/- 2.1; F8 (PR+SE) = 60.12 +/- 2.3; F8 (AR+SI) = 55.11 +/- 1.9; F8(AR+SE)=49.20 +/- 1.6; RX (PR+SI)=50.99 +/- 2.4; RX (PR+SE)=48.81 +/- 2.5; RX (AR+SI)=45.53 +/- 2.6; RX (AR+SE)=41.88 +/- 3.0. Statistically significant differences were observed among all the groups tested (P=0.001). There was significant difference when pooled means for GIC type were compared with retentive grooves (P=0.01) and when pooled means for retentive grooves were compared with insertion method (P=0.01).