Matthew Moberg1, John Brewster2, John Nicholson3,4, Howard Roberts5. 1. 42 Medical Group, Maxwell Air Force Base, 300 S. Twining Street, Montgomery, AL, USA. 2. Air Force Postgraduate Dental School Keesler AFB MS, Keesler AFB, 606 Fisher Street, Biloxi, MS, 39531, USA. 3. Bluefield Centre for Biomaterials, 67-68 Hatton Garden, London, EC1N 8JY, UK. 4. Dental Physical Sciences, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, UK. 5. University of Kentucky, College of Dentistry, 800 Rose Street, Lexington, KY, 40536, USA. Hwroberts1956@gmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate selected physical properties of nine contemporary and recently marketed glass ionomer cement (GIC) and four resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGI) dental restorative materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Specimens (n = 12) were fabricated for fracture toughness and flexure strength using standardized, stainless steel molds. Testing was completed on a universal testing machine until failure. Knoop hardness was obtained using failed fracture toughness specimens on a microhardness tester, while both flexural modulus and flexural toughness was obtained by analysis of the flexure strength results data. Testing was completed at 1 h, 24 h, 1 week, and then at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Mean data was analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney (p = 0.05). RESULTS: Physical properties results were material dependent. Physical properties of the GIC and RMGI products were inferior at 1 h compared to that at 24 h. Some improvement in selected physical properties were noted over time, but development processes were basically concluded by 24 h. A few materials demonstrated improved physical properties over the course of the evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Under the conditions of this study: 1. GIC and RMGI physical property performance over time was material dependent; 2. Polyalkenoate maturation processes are essentially complete by 24 h; 3. Although differences in GIC physical properties were noted, the small magnitude of the divergences may render such to be unlikely of clinical significance; 4. Modest increases in some GIC physical properties were noted especially flexural modulus and hardness, which lends support to reports of a maturing hydrogel matrix; 5. Overall, GIC product physical properties were more stable than RMGI; 6. A similar modulus reduction at 6 months for both RMGI and GIC produced may suggest a polyalkenoate matrix change; and 7. Globally, RMGI products demonstrated higher values of flexure strength, flexural toughness, and fracture toughness than GIC materials. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: As compared to RMGI materials, conventional glass ionomer restorative materials demonstrate more stability in physical properties.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate selected physical properties of nine contemporary and recently marketed glass ionomer cement (GIC) and four resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGI) dental restorative materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Specimens (n = 12) were fabricated for fracture toughness and flexure strength using standardized, stainless steel molds. Testing was completed on a universal testing machine until failure. Knoop hardness was obtained using failed fracture toughness specimens on a microhardness tester, while both flexural modulus and flexural toughness was obtained by analysis of the flexure strength results data. Testing was completed at 1 h, 24 h, 1 week, and then at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Mean data was analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney (p = 0.05). RESULTS: Physical properties results were material dependent. Physical properties of the GIC and RMGI products were inferior at 1 h compared to that at 24 h. Some improvement in selected physical properties were noted over time, but development processes were basically concluded by 24 h. A few materials demonstrated improved physical properties over the course of the evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Under the conditions of this study: 1. GIC and RMGI physical property performance over time was material dependent; 2. Polyalkenoate maturation processes are essentially complete by 24 h; 3. Although differences in GIC physical properties were noted, the small magnitude of the divergences may render such to be unlikely of clinical significance; 4. Modest increases in some GIC physical properties were noted especially flexural modulus and hardness, which lends support to reports of a maturing hydrogel matrix; 5. Overall, GIC product physical properties were more stable than RMGI; 6. A similar modulus reduction at 6 months for both RMGI and GIC produced may suggest a polyalkenoate matrix change; and 7. Globally, RMGI products demonstrated higher values of flexure strength, flexural toughness, and fracture toughness than GIC materials. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: As compared to RMGI materials, conventional glass ionomer restorative materials demonstrate more stability in physical properties.
Authors: Jullyana Mayara P Dezanetti; Bruna Luiza Nascimento; Juliana S R Orsi; Evelise M Souza Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-06-03 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Lucas Peixoto de Araújo; Wellington Luiz de Oliveira da Rosa; Tiago Schlindvein de Araujo; Felipe Immich; Adriana Fernandes da Silva; Evando Piva Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2022-01-20 Impact factor: 3.411