Abstract

The purposes of this study were to evaluate the sealing ability of different glass ionomer cements (GICs) used for sandwich restorations and to assess the effect of acid etching of GIC on microleakage at GIC-resin composite interface. Forty cavities were prepared on the proximal surfaces of 20 permanent human premolars (2 cavities per tooth), assigned to 4 groups (n=10) and restored as follows: Group CIE – conventional GIC (CI) was applied onto the axial and cervical cavity walls, allowed setting for 5 min and acid etched (E) along the cavity margins with 35% phosphoric acid for 15 s, washed for 30 s and water was blotted; the adhesive system was applied and light cured for 10 s, completing the restoration with composite resin light cured for 40 s; Group CIN – same as Group CIE, except for acid etching of the CI surface; Group RME – same as CIE, but using a resin modified GIC (RMGIC); Group RMN – same as Group RME, except for acid etching of the RMGIC surface. Specimens were soaked in 1% methylene blue dye solution at 24°C for 24 h, rinsed under running water for 1 h, bisected longitudinally and dye penetration was measured following the ISO/TS 11405-2003 standard. Results were statistically analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and chi-square tests (α=0.05). Dye penetration scores were as follow: CIE – 2.5; CIN – 2.5; RME – 0.9; and RMN – 0.6. The results suggest that phosphoric acid etching of GIC prior to the placement of composite resin does not improve the sealing ability of sandwich restorations. The RMGIC was more effective in preventing dye penetration at the GIC-resin composite- dentin interfaces than CI.

Highlights

  • The glass-ionomer cement (GIC) was introduced by Smith[26] in the late 1960’s, resulting from the replacement of phosphoric acid by polyacrylic acid in zinc phosphate cements

  • Significant differences were observed between the GICs (CI and resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC)), regardless the surface treatments, conventional GIC (CI) showing a significantly greater dye penetration score mean than that of RMGIC (p

  • Dye penetration at the GIC-composite resin (CR) interface occurred in 4 teeth, being 3 in Group CIE and 1 in Group CIN

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The glass-ionomer cement (GIC) was introduced by Smith[26] in the late 1960’s, resulting from the replacement of phosphoric acid by polyacrylic acid in zinc phosphate cements. 4,27,28 new types of GICs have been developed, such as the light-cured resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC)[1,27]. This material is obtained by adding a resin, usually the water-soluble polymerizable 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA), to the liquid and its bonding process to tooth structure takes place by micromechanical retention, like in resin composites[27]. The acid-base reaction takes place slowly and continues after clinical setting The advantages of this restorative material include longer working time and operator control over the setting reaction by light activation of the resin component and, an earlier development of higher bond

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call