Literature DB >> 9545880

Compomers and glass ionomers: bond strength to dentin and mechanical properties.

A Peutzfeldt1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare compomers and conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cements (GIC) with respect to bond strength to dentin and mechanical properties.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven conventional GICs (BaseLine, ChemFil Superior, Fuji II, Fuji IX, Ketac-Fil, Ketac-Silver, and Miracle Mix), three resin-modified GICs (Fuji II LC, Photac-Fil, and Vitremer), and two compomers (Dyract and Compoglass) were investigated. Bond strength was determined to untreated as well as pre-treated human dentin. The mechanical properties tested were flexural strength and flexural modulus.
RESULTS: Mean bond strengths to untreated dentin ranged from 0.0 MPa (Photac-Fil) to 8.5 MPa (Fuji IX). Generally, the bond strengths of the compomers and resin-modified GICs were lower than those of the conventional GICs. Mean bond strengths to pre-treated dentin ranged from 0.5 MPa (Photac-Fil) to 13.7 MPa (Compoglass). No clear-cut bond strength pattern was observed for the three types of materials. Pretreatment improved the bond strength of nine out of 12 materials. Flexural strengths ranged from 13 MPa (Miracle Mix) to 180 MPa (Dyract). Generally, the compomers were stronger than the resin-modified GICs, which were much stronger than the conventional GICs. Flexural moduli ranged from 4.0 GPa (Miracle Mix) to 7.2 GPa (Fuji IX and Dyract) with no typical variations between the three categories of materials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1996        PMID: 9545880

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Dent        ISSN: 0894-8275            Impact factor:   1.522


  7 in total

1.  Comparison of physical and mechanical properties of three different restorative materials in primary teeth: an in vitro study.

Authors:  B Keskus; F Oznurhan
Journal:  Eur Arch Paediatr Dent       Date:  2022-07-21

2.  Microleakage of glass ionomer formulations after erbium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser preparation.

Authors:  Katleen I M Delmé; Peter J Deman; Mieke A A De Bruyne; Samir Nammour; Roeland J G De Moor
Journal:  Lasers Med Sci       Date:  2008-08-21       Impact factor: 3.161

3.  Comparative Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength of Three Commercially Available Glass Ionomer Cements in Primary Teeth.

Authors:  S Srinivasa Murthy; Gargi S Murthy
Journal:  J Int Oral Health       Date:  2015-08

4.  Evaluation of the effect of different food media on the marginal integrity of class v compomer, conventional and resin-modified glass-ionomer restorations: an in vitro study.

Authors:  Shiji Dinakaran
Journal:  J Int Oral Health       Date:  2015-03

Review 5.  Cement selection criteria for different types of intracanal posts.

Authors:  Safoura Ghodsi; Mohammad Mostafa Aghamohseni; Sarah Arzani; Sasan Rasaeipour; Mina Shekarian
Journal:  Dent Res J (Isfahan)       Date:  2022-07-18

6.  Comparative Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength of Nanohybrid Composite Restoration After the Placement of Flowable Compomer and Composite Using the Snowplow Technique.

Authors:  Meghna Dugar; Anuja Ikhar; Pradnya Nikhade; Manoj Chandak; Nidhi Motwani
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-09-01

7.  Effect of water storage on fluoride release and mechanical properties of a polyacid-modified composite resin (compomer).

Authors:  Ibrahimm M Hammouda; Essam E Al-Wakeel
Journal:  J Biomed Res       Date:  2011-07
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.