IADR Abstract Archives
Microhardness 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 Microhardness 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 group were prepared using a steel mold (3 mm high X 6 mm diameter). Cements were manipulated according to manufacturer’s instructions and stored at 37oC for 7 days. The specimens were included in acrylic resin and the exposed surface wet-ground with 1200-grit silicon carbide. The Knoop hardness test was performed using a diamond indenter (Shimadzu Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) with 25 g load and 30 s dwell time. Three measurements were made on the surface of each specimen. Data obtained were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey test for multiple comparisons, with a significance of p<0.05.
Results: From the highest strength to the lowest the values obtained were: EF(368.37±17.29)a, GL2(316.19±20.01)b, GI(307.13± 12.80)b, GL9(304.56±13.99)b, IZ(191.03±4.91)c, KM(184.34±8.09)cd, CR(166.68±6.20)d, IS(161.92±19.23)d, IP(128.88± 11.15)e, R(120.52±6.24)e, V(106.44±5.24)e, VM(78.66±4.38)f, Ig(67.78±5.67)f, VF(65.82±11.14)f, B(39.26±2.75)g, IM(33.62±3.59)g, Ma(33.26±2.32)g, MG(23.62±3.81)g. EF microhardness was statistically different and superior to other materials tested (p<0.05).
Conclusions: There are significant Knoop hardness differences among the materials studied. Other properties must be tested aiming to classify restorative GICs to better indicate them for areas subjected to different occlusal loads, and aesthetic requirements.
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 group were prepared using a steel mold (3 mm high X 6 mm diameter). Cements were manipulated according to manufacturer’s instructions and stored at 37oC for 7 days. The specimens were included in acrylic resin and the exposed surface wet-ground with 1200-grit silicon carbide. The Knoop hardness test was performed using a diamond indenter (Shimadzu Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) with 25 g load and 30 s dwell time. Three measurements were made on the surface of each specimen. Data obtained were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey test for multiple comparisons, with a significance of p<0.05.
Results: From the highest strength to the lowest the values obtained were: EF(368.37±17.29)a, GL2(316.19±20.01)b, GI(307.13± 12.80)b, GL9(304.56±13.99)b, IZ(191.03±4.91)c, KM(184.34±8.09)cd, CR(166.68±6.20)d, IS(161.92±19.23)d, IP(128.88± 11.15)e, R(120.52±6.24)e, V(106.44±5.24)e, VM(78.66±4.38)f, Ig(67.78±5.67)f, VF(65.82±11.14)f, B(39.26±2.75)g, IM(33.62±3.59)g, Ma(33.26±2.32)g, MG(23.62±3.81)g. EF microhardness was statistically different and superior to other materials tested (p<0.05).
Conclusions: There are significant Knoop hardness differences among the materials studied. Other properties must be tested aiming to classify restorative GICs to better indicate them for areas subjected to different occlusal loads, and aesthetic requirements.