In vitro compressive strength and edge stability testing of directly repaired glass-ionomer cements

5Citations
Citations of this article
30Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objective: To study the repair potential of seven commercial glass-ionomer cements (GICs) using an in vitro edge compression test model. Materials and methods: A total of 448 normal and 192 repaired cylindrical specimens (6 × 4 mm) were produced from 6 GICs and one resin-modified GIC. Repaired samples consisted of a base aged for 1 month before repaired by an overlying layer. All samples were matured for 1 day, 1 week, 1 month or 3 months before compression, and edge tests were performed respectively on the whole surface (compressive strength, CS) or on the edge (edge stability, ES) using a universal testing machine. Results: For normal specimens, Ketac Universal (KU) illustrated a significantly higher CS than other groups at all time points (p < 0.001). ES of KU was weaker than EQUIA Forte (EQF), FIX (Fuji IX) and RSC (Riva Self Cure) after 1 day, increasing after 1 week. Repaired specimens showed CS comparable to normal specimens (p > 0.05). Repaired KU significantly improved CS compared to repaired EQF and Fuji II (FII) after 1 day. No statistical difference was found in ES among these groups (p > 0.05). Conclusions: KU provided the fastest maturation and greatest CS and ES in both normal and repair models after short-term ageing. Repair of GICs could potentially be achieved directly onto the fractured substrate and the subsequent improved mechanical performance could be maintained for at least 3 months. Clinical relevance: This study provides a potential alternative in-vitro method to assess GIC restoration failure as well as provide insight into the mechanisms of GIC restoration repair.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Zhang, J., Braun, P., & Banerjee, A. (2020). In vitro compressive strength and edge stability testing of directly repaired glass-ionomer cements. Clinical Oral Investigations, 24(9), 3029–3038. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-03170-x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free