Effect of G‐Coat Plus on the mechanical properties of glass‐ionomer cements
Background Although various mechanical properties of tooth‐coloured materials have been described, little data have been published on the effect of ageing and G‐Coat Plus on the hardness and strength of the glass‐ionomer cements (GICs). Methods Specimens were prepared from one polyacid‐modified resi...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Australian dental journal 2013-12, Vol.58 (4), p.448-453 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 453 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 448 |
container_title | Australian dental journal |
container_volume | 58 |
creator | Bagheri, R Taha, NA Azar, MR Burrow, MF |
description | Background
Although various mechanical properties of tooth‐coloured materials have been described, little data have been published on the effect of ageing and G‐Coat Plus on the hardness and strength of the glass‐ionomer cements (GICs).
Methods
Specimens were prepared from one polyacid‐modified resin composite (PAMRC; Freedom, SDI), one resin‐modified glass‐ionomer cement; (RM‐GIC; Fuji II LC, GC), and one conventional glass‐ionomer cement; (GIC; Fuji IX, GC). GIC and RM‐GIC were tested both with and without applying G‐Coat Plus (GC). Specimens were conditioned in 37 °C distilled water for either 24 hours, four and eight weeks. Half the specimens were subjected to a shear punch test using a universal testing machine; the remaining half was subjected to Vickers Hardness test.
Results
Data analysis showed that the hardness and shear punch values were material dependent. The hardness and shear punch of the PAMRC was the highest and GIC the lowest. Applying the G‐Coat Plus was associated with a significant decrease in the hardness of the materials but increase in the shear punch strength after four and eight weeks.
Conclusions
The mechanical properties of the restorative materials were affected by applying G‐Coat Plus and distilled water immersion over time. The PAMRC was significantly stronger and harder than the RM‐GIC or GIC. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/adj.12122 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1467063139</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1467063139</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3252-2f949ed33cad8419dbb6da9b56b61ed253dc137725dd6936a22c0eec0aaa1c2f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kLtOwzAUQC0EoqUw8APIIwxp_cjLY1VKAVUqA8yWY9_QVElc4kSoG5_AN_IluKSwcZe7nHt0dRC6pGRM_UyU2Ywpo4wdoSFNeRgkKRXHaEhIGAUkZHSAzpzbEMJCnpBTNPCbEUHoEK3meQ66xTbHi6-Pz5lVLX4qO4dtjds14Ar0WtWFViXeNnYLTVuA29OvpXLOXxS2thU0WEMFdevO0UmuSgcXhz1CL3fz59l9sFwtHmbTZaA5i1jAchEKMJxrZdKQCpNlsVEii-IspmBYxI2mPElYZEwseKwY0wRAE6UU1SznI3Tde_1Xbx24VlaF01CWqgbbOUnDOCExp1x49KZHdWOdayCX26aoVLOTlMh9P-n7yZ9-nr06aLusAvNH_gbzwKQH3osSdv-b5PT2sVd-A663eyw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1467063139</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effect of G‐Coat Plus on the mechanical properties of glass‐ionomer cements</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Journals</source><source>Wiley Free Content</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Bagheri, R ; Taha, NA ; Azar, MR ; Burrow, MF</creator><creatorcontrib>Bagheri, R ; Taha, NA ; Azar, MR ; Burrow, MF</creatorcontrib><description>Background
Although various mechanical properties of tooth‐coloured materials have been described, little data have been published on the effect of ageing and G‐Coat Plus on the hardness and strength of the glass‐ionomer cements (GICs).
Methods
Specimens were prepared from one polyacid‐modified resin composite (PAMRC; Freedom, SDI), one resin‐modified glass‐ionomer cement; (RM‐GIC; Fuji II LC, GC), and one conventional glass‐ionomer cement; (GIC; Fuji IX, GC). GIC and RM‐GIC were tested both with and without applying G‐Coat Plus (GC). Specimens were conditioned in 37 °C distilled water for either 24 hours, four and eight weeks. Half the specimens were subjected to a shear punch test using a universal testing machine; the remaining half was subjected to Vickers Hardness test.
Results
Data analysis showed that the hardness and shear punch values were material dependent. The hardness and shear punch of the PAMRC was the highest and GIC the lowest. Applying the G‐Coat Plus was associated with a significant decrease in the hardness of the materials but increase in the shear punch strength after four and eight weeks.
Conclusions
The mechanical properties of the restorative materials were affected by applying G‐Coat Plus and distilled water immersion over time. The PAMRC was significantly stronger and harder than the RM‐GIC or GIC.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0045-0421</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1834-7819</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/adj.12122</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24320901</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Australia</publisher><subject>Compomers ; Dental Materials ; Dentistry ; Glass Ionomer Cements ; G‐Coat Plus ; Hardness ; Humans ; Immersion ; Materials Testing - methods ; mechanical properties ; Resins, Synthetic ; Shear Strength ; Time Factors ; Water</subject><ispartof>Australian dental journal, 2013-12, Vol.58 (4), p.448-453</ispartof><rights>2013 Australian Dental Association</rights><rights>2013 Australian Dental Association.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3252-2f949ed33cad8419dbb6da9b56b61ed253dc137725dd6936a22c0eec0aaa1c2f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3252-2f949ed33cad8419dbb6da9b56b61ed253dc137725dd6936a22c0eec0aaa1c2f3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fadj.12122$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fadj.12122$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,1433,27924,27925,45574,45575,46409,46833</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24320901$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bagheri, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taha, NA</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Azar, MR</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Burrow, MF</creatorcontrib><title>Effect of G‐Coat Plus on the mechanical properties of glass‐ionomer cements</title><title>Australian dental journal</title><addtitle>Aust Dent J</addtitle><description>Background
Although various mechanical properties of tooth‐coloured materials have been described, little data have been published on the effect of ageing and G‐Coat Plus on the hardness and strength of the glass‐ionomer cements (GICs).
Methods
Specimens were prepared from one polyacid‐modified resin composite (PAMRC; Freedom, SDI), one resin‐modified glass‐ionomer cement; (RM‐GIC; Fuji II LC, GC), and one conventional glass‐ionomer cement; (GIC; Fuji IX, GC). GIC and RM‐GIC were tested both with and without applying G‐Coat Plus (GC). Specimens were conditioned in 37 °C distilled water for either 24 hours, four and eight weeks. Half the specimens were subjected to a shear punch test using a universal testing machine; the remaining half was subjected to Vickers Hardness test.
Results
Data analysis showed that the hardness and shear punch values were material dependent. The hardness and shear punch of the PAMRC was the highest and GIC the lowest. Applying the G‐Coat Plus was associated with a significant decrease in the hardness of the materials but increase in the shear punch strength after four and eight weeks.
Conclusions
The mechanical properties of the restorative materials were affected by applying G‐Coat Plus and distilled water immersion over time. The PAMRC was significantly stronger and harder than the RM‐GIC or GIC.</description><subject>Compomers</subject><subject>Dental Materials</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Glass Ionomer Cements</subject><subject>G‐Coat Plus</subject><subject>Hardness</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Immersion</subject><subject>Materials Testing - methods</subject><subject>mechanical properties</subject><subject>Resins, Synthetic</subject><subject>Shear Strength</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>Water</subject><issn>0045-0421</issn><issn>1834-7819</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kLtOwzAUQC0EoqUw8APIIwxp_cjLY1VKAVUqA8yWY9_QVElc4kSoG5_AN_IluKSwcZe7nHt0dRC6pGRM_UyU2Ywpo4wdoSFNeRgkKRXHaEhIGAUkZHSAzpzbEMJCnpBTNPCbEUHoEK3meQ66xTbHi6-Pz5lVLX4qO4dtjds14Ar0WtWFViXeNnYLTVuA29OvpXLOXxS2thU0WEMFdevO0UmuSgcXhz1CL3fz59l9sFwtHmbTZaA5i1jAchEKMJxrZdKQCpNlsVEii-IspmBYxI2mPElYZEwseKwY0wRAE6UU1SznI3Tde_1Xbx24VlaF01CWqgbbOUnDOCExp1x49KZHdWOdayCX26aoVLOTlMh9P-n7yZ9-nr06aLusAvNH_gbzwKQH3osSdv-b5PT2sVd-A663eyw</recordid><startdate>201312</startdate><enddate>201312</enddate><creator>Bagheri, R</creator><creator>Taha, NA</creator><creator>Azar, MR</creator><creator>Burrow, MF</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201312</creationdate><title>Effect of G‐Coat Plus on the mechanical properties of glass‐ionomer cements</title><author>Bagheri, R ; Taha, NA ; Azar, MR ; Burrow, MF</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3252-2f949ed33cad8419dbb6da9b56b61ed253dc137725dd6936a22c0eec0aaa1c2f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Compomers</topic><topic>Dental Materials</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Glass Ionomer Cements</topic><topic>G‐Coat Plus</topic><topic>Hardness</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Immersion</topic><topic>Materials Testing - methods</topic><topic>mechanical properties</topic><topic>Resins, Synthetic</topic><topic>Shear Strength</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>Water</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bagheri, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taha, NA</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Azar, MR</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Burrow, MF</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Australian dental journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bagheri, R</au><au>Taha, NA</au><au>Azar, MR</au><au>Burrow, MF</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effect of G‐Coat Plus on the mechanical properties of glass‐ionomer cements</atitle><jtitle>Australian dental journal</jtitle><addtitle>Aust Dent J</addtitle><date>2013-12</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>58</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>448</spage><epage>453</epage><pages>448-453</pages><issn>0045-0421</issn><eissn>1834-7819</eissn><abstract>Background
Although various mechanical properties of tooth‐coloured materials have been described, little data have been published on the effect of ageing and G‐Coat Plus on the hardness and strength of the glass‐ionomer cements (GICs).
Methods
Specimens were prepared from one polyacid‐modified resin composite (PAMRC; Freedom, SDI), one resin‐modified glass‐ionomer cement; (RM‐GIC; Fuji II LC, GC), and one conventional glass‐ionomer cement; (GIC; Fuji IX, GC). GIC and RM‐GIC were tested both with and without applying G‐Coat Plus (GC). Specimens were conditioned in 37 °C distilled water for either 24 hours, four and eight weeks. Half the specimens were subjected to a shear punch test using a universal testing machine; the remaining half was subjected to Vickers Hardness test.
Results
Data analysis showed that the hardness and shear punch values were material dependent. The hardness and shear punch of the PAMRC was the highest and GIC the lowest. Applying the G‐Coat Plus was associated with a significant decrease in the hardness of the materials but increase in the shear punch strength after four and eight weeks.
Conclusions
The mechanical properties of the restorative materials were affected by applying G‐Coat Plus and distilled water immersion over time. The PAMRC was significantly stronger and harder than the RM‐GIC or GIC.</abstract><cop>Australia</cop><pmid>24320901</pmid><doi>10.1111/adj.12122</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0045-0421 |
ispartof | Australian dental journal, 2013-12, Vol.58 (4), p.448-453 |
issn | 0045-0421 1834-7819 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1467063139 |
source | MEDLINE; Wiley Journals; Wiley Free Content; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals |
subjects | Compomers Dental Materials Dentistry Glass Ionomer Cements G‐Coat Plus Hardness Humans Immersion Materials Testing - methods mechanical properties Resins, Synthetic Shear Strength Time Factors Water |
title | Effect of G‐Coat Plus on the mechanical properties of glass‐ionomer cements |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T09%3A21%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effect%20of%20G%E2%80%90Coat%20Plus%20on%20the%20mechanical%20properties%20of%20glass%E2%80%90ionomer%20cements&rft.jtitle=Australian%20dental%20journal&rft.au=Bagheri,%20R&rft.date=2013-12&rft.volume=58&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=448&rft.epage=453&rft.pages=448-453&rft.issn=0045-0421&rft.eissn=1834-7819&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/adj.12122&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1467063139%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1467063139&rft_id=info:pmid/24320901&rfr_iscdi=true |