• Menu
  • Skip to right header navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Biomimetic Dentistry

Less drilling! More healing!

  • Home
  • Literature
    • Thermo Cure
    • Mineralisation
    • Toxicity
    • Biocompatibility
    • Clinical Experiments
    • Compressive Strength and Flexual Strength
    • Core Builds Ups
    • Test Protocols
    • Coating
    • Sealants
  • How To Make
  • Videos
  • News
  • About Us
  • Contact
  • Calendar
  • Home
  • Literature
    • Thermo Cure
    • Mineralisation
    • Toxicity
    • Biocompatibility
    • Clinical Experiments
    • Compressive Strength and Flexual Strength
    • Core Builds Ups
    • Test Protocols
    • Coating
    • Sealants
  • How To Make
  • Videos
  • News
  • About Us
  • Contact
  • Calendar

Glass ionomer cement hardness after different materials for surface protection

5 April 2010 //  by Biodentistry.eu//  Leave a Comment

Brito CR, Velasco LG, Bonini GA, Imparato JC, Raggio DP.

Source

Research Department/Council of Researches in Education and Sciences, Santos, Brazil. draceciliabrito@gmail.com

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the Knoop hardness of high viscous glass ionomer cement (GIC) Ketac Molar Easy Mix (3M ESPE, Saint Paul, USA) submitted to different types of compounds for surface protection. Sixty specimens of GIC were made in PVC molds with 7.5 mm diameter and 2.5 mm thickness. Divided in 6 groups: G1, Control (no protection); G2, Cavitine (Copal varnish); G3, Magic bond (Adhesive); G4, Adper Single Bond 2 (Single bottle adhesive); G5, Solid Petroleum Jelly; G6, Nail Varnish. The surface protection was applied after initial setting reaction. The specimens were immersed in deionized water, at 37 degrees C, for 24 h. The surfaces were polished in a rotation machine (Aropol 2V). The hardness test was accomplished in a Digital Microhardness tester HVS-100. In each specimen five indentations were done and repeated after 30 days and 4 months, under the same conditions. The results were submitted to Two-way ANOVA and Tukey Test. The only material that differed from the control group was the nail varnish (p < 0.001), with the other materials showing no significant difference from the control group. It was concluded that the best material for surface protection of GIC was the nail varnish, but because of possible harmful effects, petroleum jelly could be a better option.

PMID: 19557791 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE] 1.         J Biomed Mater Res A. 2010 Apr;93(1):243-6.

Category: Coating

Previous Post: « Kinetics of fluoride ion release from dental restorative glass ionomer cements: the influence of ultrasound, radiant heat and glass composition
Next Post: Extrinsic energy sources affect hardness through depth during set of a glass-ionomer cement »

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Upload

Click here to upload a picture

Mineralisation In Vivo

Latest News

  • SMART Pedodontic Conference 2023 2 September 2023
  • VIII Scientific and Training Conference of Pediatric Dentistry 2 September 2023
  • Biomimetic Dentistry at Smiles World 2 September 2023
  • Effects of storage media on the flexural strength of GIC 5 June 2020
  • Biomimetic Dentistry in Indonesia 18 January 2020

About

Biomimetic Dentistry is a new way of dentistry which takes advantages of the natural mineralization processes in the mouth without using harmfully products.

Copyright © 2023 · Powered by Ter Hoeven Services