Cargando…
The evaluation of interfaces between MTA and two types of GIC (conventional and resin modified) under an SEM: An in vitro study
CONTEXT: Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) is a biocompatible repair material that is often used along with glass ionomer cement (GIC) in many clinical situations. AIMS: In this study, the interface of GIC and MTA was examined, and the effect of time on this interface was tested. MATERIALS AND METHOD...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4872581/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27217640 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.181943 |
_version_ | 1782432755745816576 |
---|---|
author | Patil, Anuradha Aggarwal, Shalini Kumar, Tanaya Bhargava, Karan Rai, Vinay |
author_facet | Patil, Anuradha Aggarwal, Shalini Kumar, Tanaya Bhargava, Karan Rai, Vinay |
author_sort | Patil, Anuradha |
collection | PubMed |
description | CONTEXT: Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) is a biocompatible repair material that is often used along with glass ionomer cement (GIC) in many clinical situations. AIMS: In this study, the interface of GIC and MTA was examined, and the effect of time on this interface was tested. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty 9-mm hollow cylindrical glass molds were filled with MTA and then according to the group either conventional GIC or resin-modified GIC (RMGIC) is filled immediately or after 45 min. The specimens were then sectioned, carbon coated, and examined using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and the elemental analysis was done. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Observational study, no statistical analysis done. RESULTS: The SEM showed that both the groups underwent adhesive separation and gap formation at the interface. The specimens in which GIC was condensed over freshly mixed MTA (group IIA and group IIB) also showed cohesive separation in MTA; however, it was more in the GIC condensed after 45 min over MTA groups (group IA and group IB). The results were better for conventional GIC than RMGIC. CONCLUSIONS: GIC can be applied over freshly mixed MTA with minimal effects on the MTA, but this effect decreases with time. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4872581 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-48725812016-05-23 The evaluation of interfaces between MTA and two types of GIC (conventional and resin modified) under an SEM: An in vitro study Patil, Anuradha Aggarwal, Shalini Kumar, Tanaya Bhargava, Karan Rai, Vinay J Conserv Dent Original Article CONTEXT: Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) is a biocompatible repair material that is often used along with glass ionomer cement (GIC) in many clinical situations. AIMS: In this study, the interface of GIC and MTA was examined, and the effect of time on this interface was tested. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty 9-mm hollow cylindrical glass molds were filled with MTA and then according to the group either conventional GIC or resin-modified GIC (RMGIC) is filled immediately or after 45 min. The specimens were then sectioned, carbon coated, and examined using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and the elemental analysis was done. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Observational study, no statistical analysis done. RESULTS: The SEM showed that both the groups underwent adhesive separation and gap formation at the interface. The specimens in which GIC was condensed over freshly mixed MTA (group IIA and group IIB) also showed cohesive separation in MTA; however, it was more in the GIC condensed after 45 min over MTA groups (group IA and group IB). The results were better for conventional GIC than RMGIC. CONCLUSIONS: GIC can be applied over freshly mixed MTA with minimal effects on the MTA, but this effect decreases with time. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC4872581/ /pubmed/27217640 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.181943 Text en Copyright: © Journal of Conservative Dentistry http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Patil, Anuradha Aggarwal, Shalini Kumar, Tanaya Bhargava, Karan Rai, Vinay The evaluation of interfaces between MTA and two types of GIC (conventional and resin modified) under an SEM: An in vitro study |
title | The evaluation of interfaces between MTA and two types of GIC (conventional and resin modified) under an SEM: An in vitro study |
title_full | The evaluation of interfaces between MTA and two types of GIC (conventional and resin modified) under an SEM: An in vitro study |
title_fullStr | The evaluation of interfaces between MTA and two types of GIC (conventional and resin modified) under an SEM: An in vitro study |
title_full_unstemmed | The evaluation of interfaces between MTA and two types of GIC (conventional and resin modified) under an SEM: An in vitro study |
title_short | The evaluation of interfaces between MTA and two types of GIC (conventional and resin modified) under an SEM: An in vitro study |
title_sort | evaluation of interfaces between mta and two types of gic (conventional and resin modified) under an sem: an in vitro study |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4872581/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27217640 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.181943 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT patilanuradha theevaluationofinterfacesbetweenmtaandtwotypesofgicconventionalandresinmodifiedunderansemaninvitrostudy AT aggarwalshalini theevaluationofinterfacesbetweenmtaandtwotypesofgicconventionalandresinmodifiedunderansemaninvitrostudy AT kumartanaya theevaluationofinterfacesbetweenmtaandtwotypesofgicconventionalandresinmodifiedunderansemaninvitrostudy AT bhargavakaran theevaluationofinterfacesbetweenmtaandtwotypesofgicconventionalandresinmodifiedunderansemaninvitrostudy AT raivinay theevaluationofinterfacesbetweenmtaandtwotypesofgicconventionalandresinmodifiedunderansemaninvitrostudy AT patilanuradha evaluationofinterfacesbetweenmtaandtwotypesofgicconventionalandresinmodifiedunderansemaninvitrostudy AT aggarwalshalini evaluationofinterfacesbetweenmtaandtwotypesofgicconventionalandresinmodifiedunderansemaninvitrostudy AT kumartanaya evaluationofinterfacesbetweenmtaandtwotypesofgicconventionalandresinmodifiedunderansemaninvitrostudy AT bhargavakaran evaluationofinterfacesbetweenmtaandtwotypesofgicconventionalandresinmodifiedunderansemaninvitrostudy AT raivinay evaluationofinterfacesbetweenmtaandtwotypesofgicconventionalandresinmodifiedunderansemaninvitrostudy |