Cargando…
Effect of protective coating on microhardness of a new glass ionomer cement: Nanofilled coating versus unfilled resin
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: EQUIA(TM) is a new gastrointestinal (GI) system with high compressive strength, surface microhardness (MH), and fluoride release potential. This in vitro study aimed to assess the effect of aging and type of protective coating on the MH of EQUIA(TM) GI cement. MATERIALS AN...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5721509/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29259364 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/JCD.JCD_83_16 |
_version_ | 1783284822099099648 |
---|---|
author | Faraji, Foad Heshmat, Haleh Banava, Sepideh |
author_facet | Faraji, Foad Heshmat, Haleh Banava, Sepideh |
author_sort | Faraji, Foad |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: EQUIA(TM) is a new gastrointestinal (GI) system with high compressive strength, surface microhardness (MH), and fluoride release potential. This in vitro study aimed to assess the effect of aging and type of protective coating on the MH of EQUIA(TM) GI cement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 30 disc-shaped specimens measuring 9 mm in diameter and 2 mm in thickness were fabricated of EQUIA(TM) GI and divided into three groups of G-Coat nanofilled coating (a), no coating (b) and margin bond (c). The Vickers MH value of specimens was measured before (baseline) and at 3 and 6 months after water storage. Data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA. RESULTS: Group B had significantly higher MH than the other two groups at baseline. Both G-Coat and margin bond increased the surface MH of GI at 3 and 6 months. The MH values of G-Coat and margin bond groups did not significantly increase or decrease between 3 and 6 months. CONCLUSION: The increase in MH was greater in the G-Coat compared to the margin bond group in the long-term. Clinically, margin bond may be a suitable alternative when G-Coat is not available. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5721509 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-57215092017-12-19 Effect of protective coating on microhardness of a new glass ionomer cement: Nanofilled coating versus unfilled resin Faraji, Foad Heshmat, Haleh Banava, Sepideh J Conserv Dent Original Research Article BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: EQUIA(TM) is a new gastrointestinal (GI) system with high compressive strength, surface microhardness (MH), and fluoride release potential. This in vitro study aimed to assess the effect of aging and type of protective coating on the MH of EQUIA(TM) GI cement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 30 disc-shaped specimens measuring 9 mm in diameter and 2 mm in thickness were fabricated of EQUIA(TM) GI and divided into three groups of G-Coat nanofilled coating (a), no coating (b) and margin bond (c). The Vickers MH value of specimens was measured before (baseline) and at 3 and 6 months after water storage. Data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA. RESULTS: Group B had significantly higher MH than the other two groups at baseline. Both G-Coat and margin bond increased the surface MH of GI at 3 and 6 months. The MH values of G-Coat and margin bond groups did not significantly increase or decrease between 3 and 6 months. CONCLUSION: The increase in MH was greater in the G-Coat compared to the margin bond group in the long-term. Clinically, margin bond may be a suitable alternative when G-Coat is not available. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5721509/ /pubmed/29259364 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/JCD.JCD_83_16 Text en Copyright: © 2017 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 Research Article Faraji, Foad Heshmat, Haleh Banava, Sepideh Effect of protective coating on microhardness of a new glass ionomer cement: Nanofilled coating versus unfilled resin |
title | Effect of protective coating on microhardness of a new glass ionomer cement: Nanofilled coating versus unfilled resin |
title_full | Effect of protective coating on microhardness of a new glass ionomer cement: Nanofilled coating versus unfilled resin |
title_fullStr | Effect of protective coating on microhardness of a new glass ionomer cement: Nanofilled coating versus unfilled resin |
title_full_unstemmed | Effect of protective coating on microhardness of a new glass ionomer cement: Nanofilled coating versus unfilled resin |
title_short | Effect of protective coating on microhardness of a new glass ionomer cement: Nanofilled coating versus unfilled resin |
title_sort | effect of protective coating on microhardness of a new glass ionomer cement: nanofilled coating versus unfilled resin |
topic | Original Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5721509/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29259364 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/JCD.JCD_83_16 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT farajifoad effectofprotectivecoatingonmicrohardnessofanewglassionomercementnanofilledcoatingversusunfilledresin AT heshmathaleh effectofprotectivecoatingonmicrohardnessofanewglassionomercementnanofilledcoatingversusunfilledresin AT banavasepideh effectofprotectivecoatingonmicrohardnessofanewglassionomercementnanofilledcoatingversusunfilledresin |