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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Patil, Anuradha, Aggarwal, Shalini, Kumar, Tanaya, Bhargava, Karan, Rai, Vinay
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