Influence of Ultrasound and manual Toothbrushing on Abrasion Resistance of three Glass Ionomer Cement materials | ||
| Al-Azhar Journal of Dental Science | ||
| Volume 28, Issue 1, February 2025, Pages 123-130 PDF (782.57 K) | ||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/ajdsm.2023.188973.1413 | ||
| Authors | ||
| mohamed Ali Sarhan* 1; Ibrahim Farouk Barakat2; Alaa Nabil Abbas3; Adel Shaaban4 | ||
| 1Pedodontics and Oral Health Department, Faculty of Dental Medicine (Boys, Cairo), Al-Azhar University | ||
| 2Assistant professor of Pedodontics and Oral Health Faculty of Dental Medicine, Boys, Cairo Al-Azhar University | ||
| 3Oral health and pedodontics department, faculty of dental medicine, Al Azhar University, Cairo | ||
| 4Associated Professor of Dental Biomaterials, Faculty of Dental Medicine (Cairo, Boys), Al-Azhar University | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Abstract: Objectives: The most popular oral care practice is brushing teeth, although this can abrasively wear down restorative materials' surface and physical qualities. This in vitro study's objective was to assess the erosive impact of two distinct toothbrushing approaches on the surface roughness of three different glass-ionomer-cement (GIC)-based restorative materials. The study's null hypothesis was that the toothbrushing approach had no bearing on how well the various GICs' surfaces looked. Materials and Methods: A total of 78 glass-ionomer-based restorations of disk-shaped samples were used in this study. The samples were divided into three equal main groups (n= 26) according to the type of restorative material; Group A; Giomer, Group B; light-cured Resin-modified GIC (RMGIC), Group C, and conventional GIC. Then each main group was further subdivided equal two subgroups based on the method of brushing (Manual and ultrasound). A cylindrical split Teflon mold with dimensions of (7 mm diameter and 2 mm thickness) was used to make the glass-ionomer-based restoration disks in all groups. The brushing simulation was carried out by a device with moving arms holding manual and ultrasound toothbrushes. Measurements of abrasion resistance (surface Loss) using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Results: The results revealed that all Giomer restorative material had the higher significant abrasion resistance followed by RMGIC and then GIC. Conclusion: Surface abrasion varies depending on the material as well as the brushing approach. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Abrasion Resistance; Manual; Toothbrushing; Ultrasound; Glass Ionomer Cement materials | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 48 PDF Download: 28 |
||
