IADR Abstract Archives
Flexural Strength Comparison of Conventional Restorative Glass-Ionomer Cements
Objectives: This work is part of a larger study that aims to test different properties of restorative glass-ionomer cements to establish a new clinical classification of these materials, and to compare the flexural strength of different conventional restorative glass-ionomer cements (GIC).
Methods: Eighteen GICs [Bioglass R-Biodinâmica-Brazil (B), ChemFil Rock-Dentsply-U.S.A. (CR), Equia Forte-GC-Japan (EF), GC Gold Label 9-GC-Japan (GL9), GC Gold Label 2-GC-Japan (GL2), GlasIonomer Type II- Shofu Inc. Kyoto, Japan (GI), Ionglass-Maquira-Brazil (Ig), Ionofil Plus-Voco-Germany (IP), Ionomaster- Wilcos, Petrópolis, Brazil (IM), IonoStar Molar- Voco GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany (IS), Ion Z-FGM-Brazil (IZ), Ketac Molar Easy Mix-3M ESPE-U.S.A. (KM), Magic Glass- Vigodent, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (MG), Maxxion-FGM-Brazil (Ma), Riva Self Cure-SDI-Australia (R), Vidrion-SSWhite-Brazil (V), Vitro Fil- DFL-Brazil (VF), Vitro Molar-DFL-Brazil (VM)] were evaluated. Five samples per brand were prepared using a steel mold (internal dimensions of 25 mm x 2 mm x 2 mm). Cements were manipulated according to manufacturer’s instructions. The whole assembly was stored at 37oC for 1 h. The specimens were carefully removed from the molds and stored in distilled water at 37oC for 23 hours. Specimens in three-point loading were tested in a universal testing machine (Kratos equipment, K5000, Cotia, Brazil) with a 200kgf load cell. The test was conducted under 0.75 mm/min speed perpendicular to specimens axis until fracture. Data obtained were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey tests for multiple comparisons, with a significance of p<0.05.
Results: From the highest strength to the lowest the values obtained were: GL2 (29.55±2.58)a, EF (28.45±1.43)a, GL9 (28.34±2.20)a, IS (27.95±1.69)a, CR (23.97±1.97)a,b, R (22.08±2.10)a,b,c, V (21.65±1.36)a,b,c, IP (21.63±2.16)a,b,c, VM (17.60±3.01)b,c,d, GI (17.50±3.15)b,c,d, KM (16.88±1.37)b,c,d,e, IZ (15.25±0.86)b,c,d,e,f, B (12.76±0.55)c,d,e,f, Ig (12.65±2.80)c,d,e,f, VF (12.02±0.75)d,e,f, IM (8.21±0.28)d,e,f, Ma (7.47±0.69)e,f, MG (7.17±0.54)f.
Conclusions: There are significant differences among the materials studied. Other properties must be tested aiming to classify restorative GICs.
Methods: Eighteen GICs [Bioglass R-Biodinâmica-Brazil (B), ChemFil Rock-Dentsply-U.S.A. (CR), Equia Forte-GC-Japan (EF), GC Gold Label 9-GC-Japan (GL9), GC Gold Label 2-GC-Japan (GL2), GlasIonomer Type II- Shofu Inc. Kyoto, Japan (GI), Ionglass-Maquira-Brazil (Ig), Ionofil Plus-Voco-Germany (IP), Ionomaster- Wilcos, Petrópolis, Brazil (IM), IonoStar Molar- Voco GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany (IS), Ion Z-FGM-Brazil (IZ), Ketac Molar Easy Mix-3M ESPE-U.S.A. (KM), Magic Glass- Vigodent, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (MG), Maxxion-FGM-Brazil (Ma), Riva Self Cure-SDI-Australia (R), Vidrion-SSWhite-Brazil (V), Vitro Fil- DFL-Brazil (VF), Vitro Molar-DFL-Brazil (VM)] were evaluated. Five samples per brand were prepared using a steel mold (internal dimensions of 25 mm x 2 mm x 2 mm). Cements were manipulated according to manufacturer’s instructions. The whole assembly was stored at 37oC for 1 h. The specimens were carefully removed from the molds and stored in distilled water at 37oC for 23 hours. Specimens in three-point loading were tested in a universal testing machine (Kratos equipment, K5000, Cotia, Brazil) with a 200kgf load cell. The test was conducted under 0.75 mm/min speed perpendicular to specimens axis until fracture. Data obtained were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey tests for multiple comparisons, with a significance of p<0.05.
Results: From the highest strength to the lowest the values obtained were: GL2 (29.55±2.58)a, EF (28.45±1.43)a, GL9 (28.34±2.20)a, IS (27.95±1.69)a, CR (23.97±1.97)a,b, R (22.08±2.10)a,b,c, V (21.65±1.36)a,b,c, IP (21.63±2.16)a,b,c, VM (17.60±3.01)b,c,d, GI (17.50±3.15)b,c,d, KM (16.88±1.37)b,c,d,e, IZ (15.25±0.86)b,c,d,e,f, B (12.76±0.55)c,d,e,f, Ig (12.65±2.80)c,d,e,f, VF (12.02±0.75)d,e,f, IM (8.21±0.28)d,e,f, Ma (7.47±0.69)e,f, MG (7.17±0.54)f.
Conclusions: There are significant differences among the materials studied. Other properties must be tested aiming to classify restorative GICs.