Effect of light curing unit on resin-modified glass-ionomer cements: a microhardness assessment

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the microhardness of resin-modified glass-ionomer cements (RMGICs) photoactivated with a blue light-emitting diode (LED) curing light. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty specimens were distributed in 3 groups: Fuji II LC Improved/GC (RM1), Vitremer/3M ESPE (RM2) and Filtek Z250/ 3M ESPE (RM3). Two commercial light-curing units were used to polymerize the materials: LED/Ultrablue IS and a halogen light/XL3000 (QTH). After 24 h, Knoop microhardness test was performed. Data were submitted to three-way ANOVA and Tukey's test at a pre-set alpha of 0.05. RESULTS: At the top surface, no statistically significant difference (p>;0.05) in the microhardness was seen when the LED and QTH lights were used for all materials. At the bottom surface, microhardness mean value of RM2 was significantly higher when the QTH light was used (p;0.05) for both RMGICs, regardless of the light used. For RM3, microhardness mean value at the top was significantly higher (

Effect of light curing unit on resin-modified glass-ionomer cements: a microhardness assessment

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the microhardness of resin-modified glass-ionomer cements (RMGICs) photoactivated with a blue light-emitting diode (LED) curing light. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty specimens were distributed in 3 groups: Fuji II LC Improved/GC (RM1), Vitremer/3M ESPE (RM2) and Filtek Z250/ 3M ESPE (RM3). Two commercial light-curing units were used to polymerize the materials: LED/Ultrablue IS and a halogen light/XL3000 (QTH). After 24 h, Knoop microhardness test was performed. Data were submitted to three-way ANOVA and Tukey's test at a pre-set alpha of 0.05. RESULTS: At the top surface, no statistically significant difference (p>0.05) in the microhardness was seen when the LED and QTH lights were used for all materials. At the bottom surface, microhardness mean value of RM2 was significantly higher when the QTH light was used (p<0.05). For RM1, statistically significant higher values (p<0.05) were seen when the LED light was used. No statistically significant difference (p>0.05) was seen at the bottom surface for RM3, irrespective of the light used. Top-to-bottom surface comparison showed no statistically significant difference (p>0.05) for both RMGICs, regardless of the light used. For RM3, microhardness mean value at the top was significantly higher (p<0.05) than bottom microhardness when both curing units were used. CONCLUSION: The microhardness values seen when a LED light was used varied depending on the restorative material tested

Resistência à tração diametral e sorção de água de cimentos de ionômero de vidro usados no Tratamento Restaurador Atraumático

The purposes of this study were to evaluate the diametral tensile strength and the water sorption of restorative (Fuji IX and Ketac Molar) and resin-modified glass-ionomer luting cements (ProTec Cem, Fuji Plus and Vitremer) mixed at both manufacturer and increased powder: liquid ratio, for their use in the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment. A conventional restorative glass-ionomer (Ketac Fil) was used as control. Specimens (6.0 mm in diameter x 3.0 mm in height) were prepared and stored (1 hour, 1 day and 1 week) for a diametral tensile strength test. Data were subjected to two-way ANOVA and Tukey tests (pAvaliou-se a resistência à tração diametral e a sorção de água de cimentos de ionômero de vidro restauradores (Fuji IX e Ketac Molar) e modificados por resina indicados para cimentação (ProTec Cem, Fuji Plus e Vitremer) manipulados na proporção pó: líquido indicada pelo fabricante e em maior proporção para a utilização no Tratamento Restaurador Atraumático. O ionômero restaurador convencional (Ketac Fil) foi utilizado como controle. Espécimes (6,0 mm de diâmetro x 3,0 mm de altura) foram preparados e armazenados (1 hora, 1 dia e 1 semana) para o teste de resistência à tração diametral. Os dados foram submetidos a ANOVA a dois critérios e ao teste de Tukey (

In vitro interactions between lactic acid solution and art glass-ionomer cements

OBJECTIVES: Production of acids such as lactic acid contributes to establish a cariogenic environment that leads to dental substrate demineralization. Fluoride plays an important role in this case and, as fluoride-releasing materials, glass-ionomer cements are expected to contribute to minimize deleterious reactions. This study evaluated interactions of glass-ionomer cements used in atraumatic restorative treatment (ART-GICs) with an aqueous lactic acid solution, testing the null hypotheses that no changes occur in the pH of the solution or on the surface roughness and mass of the ART-GICs when exposed to lactic acid solution over a 6-week period. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ketac Molar, Fuji IX, Vitro Molar and Magic Glass were tested, and compared to Filtek Z250 and Ketac Fil Plus as control groups. Six specimens of each material were made according to manufacturers' instructions. The pH of the solution and roughness and mass changes of each specimen were determined over 6 weeks. Each specimen was individually stored in 2 mL of 0.02 M lactic acid solution for 1 week, renewing the solution every week. pH of solution and mass of the specimens were monitored weekly, and surface roughness of the specimens was assessed before and at the end of the 6-week acid challenge. pH and mass data were analyzed statistically by repeated measures using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc tests for each material. Paired t-tests were used for roughness analysis. Tukey's post-hoc tests were applied to verify differences of final roughness among the materials. Significance level was set at 5%. RESULTS: The null hypotheses were partially rejected. All materials were able to increase the pH of the lactic acid solution and presented rougher surfaces after immersion, while mass change was minimal and generally not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: These findings can be helpful to predict the performance of these materials under clinical conditions. A protective action against the carious process with significant surface damage due to erosion may be expected

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)

Water sorption of resin-modified glass-ionomer cements photoactivated with LED

The Light Emitting Diodes (LED) technology has been used to photoactivate composite resins and there is a great number of published studies in this area. However, there are no studies regarding resin-modified glass-ionomer cements (RMGIC), which also need photoactivation. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate water sorption of two RMGIC photoactivated with LED and to compare this property to that obtained with a halogen light curing unit. A resin composite was used as control. Five specimens of 15.0 mm in diameter x 1.0 mm in height were prepared for each combination of material (Fuji II LC Improved, Vitremer, and Filtek Z250) and curing unit (Radii and Optilight Plus) and transferred to desiccators until a constant mass was obtained. Then the specimens were immersed into deionized water for 7 days, weighed and reconditioned to a constant mass in desiccators. Water sorption was calculated based on weight and volume of specimens. The data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey test (p < 0.05). Specimens photocured with LED presented significantly more water sorption than those photocured with halogen light. The RMGIC absorbed statistically significant more water than the resin composite. The type of light curing unit affected water sorption characteristics of the RMGIC

In vitro interactions between lactic acid solution and art glass-ionomer cements

OBJECTIVES: Production of acids such as lactic acid contributes to establish a cariogenic environment that leads to dental substrate demineralization. Fluoride plays an important role in this case and, as fluoride-releasing materials, glass-ionomer cements are expected to contribute to minimize deleterious reactions. This study evaluated interactions of glass-ionomer cements used in atraumatic restorative treatment (ART-GICs) with an aqueous lactic acid solution, testing the null hypotheses that no changes occur in the pH of the solution or on the surface roughness and mass of the ART-GICs when exposed to lactic acid solution over a 6-week period. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ketac Molar, Fuji IX, Vitro Molar and Magic Glass were tested, and compared to Filtek Z250 and Ketac Fil Plus as control groups. Six specimens of each material were made according to manufacturers' instructions. The pH of the solution and roughness and mass changes of each specimen were determined over 6 weeks. Each specimen was individually stored in 2 mL of 0.02 M lactic acid solution for 1 week, renewing the solution every week. pH of solution and mass of the specimens were monitored weekly, and surface roughness of the specimens was assessed before and at the end of the 6-week acid challenge. pH and mass data were analyzed statistically by repeated measures using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc tests for each material. Paired t-tests were used for roughness analysis. Tukey's post-hoc tests were applied to verify differences of final roughness among the materials. Significance level was set at 5%. RESULTS: The null hypotheses were partially rejected. All materials were able to increase the pH of the lactic acid solution and presented rougher surfaces after immersion, while mass change was minimal and generally not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: These findings can be helpful to predict the performance of these materials under clinical conditions. A protective action against the carious process with significant surface damage due to erosion may be expected