IADR Abstract Archives
Measurement of Translucency of Conventional Restorative Glass-ionomer Cements
Objectives: The objective was to compare the translucency parameter (TP) of different conventional restorative glass-ionomer cements (GICs).
Methods: Eighteen brands of conventional restorative GICs were evaluated: Bioglass R (Biodinâmica, Brazil) [B], Chemfil Rock (Dentsply, USA) [CR], Equia Forte (GC, Japan) [EF], Gold Label 2 (GC, Japan) [GL2], Gold Label 9 (GC, Japan) [GL9], Glass Ionomer Cement Type II (Shofu, Japan) [GI], Ionglass R (Maquira, Brazil) [IG], Ion Z (FGM, Brazil) [IZ], Ionomaster (Wilcos, Brazil) [IM], Ionofil Plus (Voco, Germany) [IP], Ionostar Plus (Voco, Germany) [IS], Ketac Molar Easymix (3M ESPE, Germany) [KM], Magic Glass R (Vigodent, Brazil) [MG], Maxxion R (FGM, Brazil) [Ma], Riva Self Cure (SDI, Australia) [R], Vidrion R (SS White, Brazil) [V], Vitro Fil R (Nova DFL, Brazil) [VF] and Vitro Molar (Nova DFL, Brazil) [VM]. Five disks of each material were made using a circular mold (1mm x 10mm) following ISO 9917-1. The specimens were stored individually in distilled water for 7 days at 37°C without exposure to light. The CIELab parameters (L*, a* and b*) of the disks were evaluated using a colorimeter in a viewing cabinet with D65 illuminant, against backings of white and black, to obtain TPs of the different brands of GICs. TP data were subjected to the one-way ANOVA and Tukey test, with a significance level of 5%.
Results: Results demonstrated that there were significant differences in TP among brands (p<0.001). Material B (20.04+0.76) was significantly different from the other groups with the highest TP, while V (5.55+1.54) and CR (3.94+0.52) were the materials which presented the lowest TP values.
Conclusions: It is possible to conclude that conventional restorative GICs exhibit different translucency behavior. This may impact on shade selection for each specific situation. Thus, the clinician should be able to evaluate which material would be the most appropriate for each clinical case.
Methods: Eighteen brands of conventional restorative GICs were evaluated: Bioglass R (Biodinâmica, Brazil) [B], Chemfil Rock (Dentsply, USA) [CR], Equia Forte (GC, Japan) [EF], Gold Label 2 (GC, Japan) [GL2], Gold Label 9 (GC, Japan) [GL9], Glass Ionomer Cement Type II (Shofu, Japan) [GI], Ionglass R (Maquira, Brazil) [IG], Ion Z (FGM, Brazil) [IZ], Ionomaster (Wilcos, Brazil) [IM], Ionofil Plus (Voco, Germany) [IP], Ionostar Plus (Voco, Germany) [IS], Ketac Molar Easymix (3M ESPE, Germany) [KM], Magic Glass R (Vigodent, Brazil) [MG], Maxxion R (FGM, Brazil) [Ma], Riva Self Cure (SDI, Australia) [R], Vidrion R (SS White, Brazil) [V], Vitro Fil R (Nova DFL, Brazil) [VF] and Vitro Molar (Nova DFL, Brazil) [VM]. Five disks of each material were made using a circular mold (1mm x 10mm) following ISO 9917-1. The specimens were stored individually in distilled water for 7 days at 37°C without exposure to light. The CIELab parameters (L*, a* and b*) of the disks were evaluated using a colorimeter in a viewing cabinet with D65 illuminant, against backings of white and black, to obtain TPs of the different brands of GICs. TP data were subjected to the one-way ANOVA and Tukey test, with a significance level of 5%.
Results: Results demonstrated that there were significant differences in TP among brands (p<0.001). Material B (20.04+0.76) was significantly different from the other groups with the highest TP, while V (5.55+1.54) and CR (3.94+0.52) were the materials which presented the lowest TP values.
Conclusions: It is possible to conclude that conventional restorative GICs exhibit different translucency behavior. This may impact on shade selection for each specific situation. Thus, the clinician should be able to evaluate which material would be the most appropriate for each clinical case.