Cargando…

Evaluation of surface roughness and hardness of different glass ionomer cements

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate surface roughness and hardness of a nanofiller GIC, a resin-modified GIC, three conventional GICs, and a silver-reinforced GIC. METHODS: For each material, 11 spcecimens were prepared and then stored in distilled water at 37 °C for 24 h. The surface...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bala, Oya, Arisu, Hacer Deniz, Yikilgan, Ihsan, Arslan, Seda, Gullu, Abdulkadir
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dental Investigations Society 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3252813/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22229011
_version_ 1782220678821314560
author Bala, Oya
Arisu, Hacer Deniz
Yikilgan, Ihsan
Arslan, Seda
Gullu, Abdulkadir
author_facet Bala, Oya
Arisu, Hacer Deniz
Yikilgan, Ihsan
Arslan, Seda
Gullu, Abdulkadir
author_sort Bala, Oya
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate surface roughness and hardness of a nanofiller GIC, a resin-modified GIC, three conventional GICs, and a silver-reinforced GIC. METHODS: For each material, 11 spcecimens were prepared and then stored in distilled water at 37 °C for 24 h. The surface roughness of 5 specimens was measured using a surface profilometer before polishing and after polishing with coarse, medium, fine, superfine aluminum oxide abrasive Sof-Lex discs respectively. The hardness of the upper surfaces of the remaining 6 specimens was measured with a Vickers microhardness measuring instrument. RESULTS: All tested GICs showed lower surface roughness values after the polishing procedure. Surface finish of nanofiller GIC was smoother than the other tested GICs after polishing. This was followed by resin-modified GIC, Fuji II LC; then silver-reinforced GIC, Argion Molar, conventional GICs, Aqua Ionofil Plus, Fuji IX, and Ionofil Molar, respectively. The result of the hardness test indicated that the microhardness value of silver-reinforced GIC was greater than that of the other GICs. When the hardness values of all tested GICs were compared, the differences between materials (except Aqua Ionofil Plus with Ionofil Molar and Ketac N100 with Fuji II LC (P>.05)) were found statistically significant (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: According to the results of this study, it can be concluded that the differences in the composition of GICs may affect their surface roughness and hardness.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3252813
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Dental Investigations Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-32528132012-01-06 Evaluation of surface roughness and hardness of different glass ionomer cements Bala, Oya Arisu, Hacer Deniz Yikilgan, Ihsan Arslan, Seda Gullu, Abdulkadir Eur J Dent Original Articles OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate surface roughness and hardness of a nanofiller GIC, a resin-modified GIC, three conventional GICs, and a silver-reinforced GIC. METHODS: For each material, 11 spcecimens were prepared and then stored in distilled water at 37 °C for 24 h. The surface roughness of 5 specimens was measured using a surface profilometer before polishing and after polishing with coarse, medium, fine, superfine aluminum oxide abrasive Sof-Lex discs respectively. The hardness of the upper surfaces of the remaining 6 specimens was measured with a Vickers microhardness measuring instrument. RESULTS: All tested GICs showed lower surface roughness values after the polishing procedure. Surface finish of nanofiller GIC was smoother than the other tested GICs after polishing. This was followed by resin-modified GIC, Fuji II LC; then silver-reinforced GIC, Argion Molar, conventional GICs, Aqua Ionofil Plus, Fuji IX, and Ionofil Molar, respectively. The result of the hardness test indicated that the microhardness value of silver-reinforced GIC was greater than that of the other GICs. When the hardness values of all tested GICs were compared, the differences between materials (except Aqua Ionofil Plus with Ionofil Molar and Ketac N100 with Fuji II LC (P>.05)) were found statistically significant (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: According to the results of this study, it can be concluded that the differences in the composition of GICs may affect their surface roughness and hardness. Dental Investigations Society 2012-01 /pmc/articles/PMC3252813/ /pubmed/22229011 Text en Copyright 2012 European Journal of Dentistry. All rights reserved.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Bala, Oya
Arisu, Hacer Deniz
Yikilgan, Ihsan
Arslan, Seda
Gullu, Abdulkadir
Evaluation of surface roughness and hardness of different glass ionomer cements
title Evaluation of surface roughness and hardness of different glass ionomer cements
title_full Evaluation of surface roughness and hardness of different glass ionomer cements
title_fullStr Evaluation of surface roughness and hardness of different glass ionomer cements
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of surface roughness and hardness of different glass ionomer cements
title_short Evaluation of surface roughness and hardness of different glass ionomer cements
title_sort evaluation of surface roughness and hardness of different glass ionomer cements
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3252813/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22229011
work_keys_str_mv AT balaoya evaluationofsurfaceroughnessandhardnessofdifferentglassionomercements
AT arisuhacerdeniz evaluationofsurfaceroughnessandhardnessofdifferentglassionomercements
AT yikilganihsan evaluationofsurfaceroughnessandhardnessofdifferentglassionomercements
AT arslanseda evaluationofsurfaceroughnessandhardnessofdifferentglassionomercements
AT gulluabdulkadir evaluationofsurfaceroughnessandhardnessofdifferentglassionomercements