Resin-modified glass ionomer, modified composite or conventional glass ionomer for band cementation?: an in vitro evaluation

被引:21
|
作者
Millett, DT [1 ]
Cummings, A [1 ]
Letters, S [1 ]
Roger, E [1 ]
Love, J [1 ]
机构
[1] Glasgow Dent Hosp & Sch, Unit Orthodont, Glasgow G2 3JZ, Lanark, Scotland
关键词
D O I
10.1093/ejo/25.6.609
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
The aims of this study were to compare the mean shear-peel bond strength and predominant site of bond failure of micro-etched orthodontic bands cemented with resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC; Fuji Ortho LC or 3M Multi-Cure), a modified composite or a conventional GIC. The survival time of bands was also assessed following simulated mechanical stress in a ball mill. One hundred and twenty molar bands were cemented to extracted human third molars. Eighty bands (20 cemented with each cement) were used to assess the debonding force and 40 bands (10 cemented with each cement) were used to determine survival time. The specimens were prepared in accordance with the manufacturers' instructions for each cement. After storage in a humidor at 37degreesC for 24 hours, the shear debonding force was assessed for each specimen using a Nene M3000 testing machine with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/minute. The predominant site of band failure was recorded visually for all specimens as either at the band/cement or cement/enamel interface. Survival time was assessed following application of mechanical stress in a ball mill. There was no significant difference in mean shear-peel bond strength between the cement groups (P = 0.816). The proportion of specimens failing at each interface differed significantly between cement groups (P < 0.001). The predominant site of bond failure for bands cemented with the RMGIC (Fuji Ortho LC) or the modified composite was at the enamel/cement interface, whereas bands cemented with 3M Multi-Cure failed predominantly at the cement/band interface. Conventional GIC specimens failed mostly at the enamel/cement interface. The mean survival time of bands cemented with either of the RMGICs or with the modified composite was significantly longer than for those cemented with the conventional GIC. The findings indicate that although there appears to be equivalence in the mean shear-peel bond strength of the band cements assessed, the fatigue properties of the conventional GIC when subjected to simulated mechanical stress seem inferior to those of the other cements for band cementation.
引用
收藏
页码:609 / 614
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] An In Vitro Biocompatibility Study of Conventional and Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cements
    Rodriguez, Ismael A.
    Rozas Ferrara, Carlos A.
    Campos-Sanchez, Fernando
    Alaminos, Miguel
    Uribe Echevarria, Jorge
    Campos, Antonio
    JOURNAL OF ADHESIVE DENTISTRY, 2013, 15 (06): : 541 - 546
  • [2] Caries inhibition by a resin-modified and a conventional glass ionomer cement, in vitro
    Dunne, SM
    Goolnik, JS
    Millar, BJ
    Seddon, RP
    JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 1996, 24 (1-2) : 91 - 94
  • [3] Orthodontic band retention using microetching and resin-modified glass ionomer and conventional glass ionomer cements.
    Paras, T
    Dhuru, V
    Ferguson, D
    Gannon, M
    Niland, P
    JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 1996, 75 : 28 - 28
  • [4] Modified composite or conventional glass ionomer for band cementation? A comparative clinical trial
    Gillgrass, TJ
    Benington, PCM
    Millett, DT
    Newell, J
    Gilmour, WH
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 2001, 120 (01) : 49 - 53
  • [5] Strengths of additions to composite or resin-modified glass-ionomer
    Sullivan, Richard H.
    Hatch, Robert H.
    Stegall, Daniel M.
    Verissimo, Crisnicaw
    Tantbirojn, Daranee
    Versluis, Antheunis
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADHESION AND ADHESIVES, 2016, 69 : 86 - 90
  • [6] Evaluation of the Effect of Nanographene Oxide on Microleakage of Conventional and Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer
    Sharafeddin, Farahnaz
    Ghodrati, Parisa
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 2023, 2023
  • [7] Clinical evaluation of a conventional versus a resin-modified glass ionomer cement.
    Avila, G
    Navarro, MFD
    Palma, RG
    Franco, EB
    JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 1996, 75 : 381 - 381
  • [8] Solubility of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement
    Quackenbush, BM
    Donly, KJ
    Croll, TP
    JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY FOR CHILDREN, 1998, 65 (05): : 310 - +
  • [9] Cytotoxicity of resin-modified glass ionomer cements
    Chen, RCS
    Chiou, LR
    Chen, KH
    JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 1998, 77 : 812 - 812
  • [10] Fracture toughness of conventional, resin-modified glass-ionomer and composite luting cements
    Mitchell, CA
    Douglas, WH
    Cheng, YS
    DENTAL MATERIALS, 1999, 15 (01) : 7 - 13