J Y Hu1, L Li1, Q M Zhou1, R Y Ding2, R Shang2, W Bai3. 1. Department of General Dentistry II, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Beijing 100081, China. 2. Department of Geriatric Dentistry, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Beijing 100081, China. 3. Department of Dental Materials, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Beijing 100081, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the influence of different mixing pads on the physical and mechanical properties of glass ionomer cement. METHODS: Three different glass ionomer base cements were mixed with a plastic spatula on three different mixing pads including paper pad, glass pad and silicon pad whose HS were 40, 60 and 80. The GIC was packed into stainless steel molds to get specimens. Surface roughness, surface hardness and compressive strength were evaluated. RESULTS: As for compressive strength, CF: There was the highest mean compressive strength that was significantly higher than those of silicon pad 60 group, paper 60 group and paper 20 group in silicon pad 40 group, the differences P values were 0.002, 0.027, and 0.036, statistically significant difference between the above groups (P<0.05). IX: there was the highest mean compressive strength that was significantly higher than those of silicon pad 60 group in paper pad 20 group,the differences P value was 0.008, statistically significant (P<0.05). FX: there was the highest mean compressive strength that was no significantly higher than those of paper pad 20 group in silicon pad 40 group, but was significantly higher than those of the other groups. As for surface hardness, CF: there was the highest mean surface hardness that was significantly higher than those of silicon pad 60 and 80 group, paper 60 group in silicon pad 40 group, the differences P value was 0.021, 0.001, 0.032, 0.008 and 0.016, statistically significant difference between the above groups (P<0.05). IX and FX: there was no statistical significance between any two groups in surface hardness. As for surface roughness, CF: there was no statistical significance between any two groups in surface roughness. IX: there was the lowest mean surface roughness that was significantly lower than those of paper pad 40 and 60 group in glass pad group, the differences P values were 0.003 and 0.027, statistically significant difference between the above groups (P<0.05). FX: there was the lowest mean surface roughness that was significantly lower than those of paper pad 60 group in glass pad group, the differences P value was 0.018, showing a statistical difference (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Mixing glass ionomer cement on silicon pad 40 results in higher compressive strength and lower surface roughness, worthy of clinical popularization.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the influence of different mixing pads on the physical and mechanical properties of glass ionomer cement. METHODS: Three different glass ionomer base cements were mixed with a plastic spatula on three different mixing pads including paper pad, glass pad and silicon pad whose HS were 40, 60 and 80. The GIC was packed into stainless steel molds to get specimens. Surface roughness, surface hardness and compressive strength were evaluated. RESULTS: As for compressive strength, CF: There was the highest mean compressive strength that was significantly higher than those of silicon pad 60 group, paper 60 group and paper 20 group in silicon pad 40 group, the differences P values were 0.002, 0.027, and 0.036, statistically significant difference between the above groups (P<0.05). IX: there was the highest mean compressive strength that was significantly higher than those of silicon pad 60 group in paper pad 20 group,the differences P value was 0.008, statistically significant (P<0.05). FX: there was the highest mean compressive strength that was no significantly higher than those of paper pad 20 group in silicon pad 40 group, but was significantly higher than those of the other groups. As for surface hardness, CF: there was the highest mean surface hardness that was significantly higher than those of silicon pad 60 and 80 group, paper 60 group in silicon pad 40 group, the differences P value was 0.021, 0.001, 0.032, 0.008 and 0.016, statistically significant difference between the above groups (P<0.05). IX and FX: there was no statistical significance between any two groups in surface hardness. As for surface roughness, CF: there was no statistical significance between any two groups in surface roughness. IX: there was the lowest mean surface roughness that was significantly lower than those of paper pad 40 and 60 group in glass pad group, the differences P values were 0.003 and 0.027, statistically significant difference between the above groups (P<0.05). FX: there was the lowest mean surface roughness that was significantly lower than those of paper pad 60 group in glass pad group, the differences P value was 0.018, showing a statistical difference (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Mixing glass ionomer cement on silicon pad 40 results in higher compressive strength and lower surface roughness, worthy of clinical popularization.