SURFACE ROUGHNESS AND SOLUBILITY OF A NANO-FILLED RESIN MODIFIED GLASS-IONOMER (INVITRO STUDY) | ||
| Alexandria Dental Journal | ||
| Article 20, Volume 43, Issue 2, August 2018, Pages 123-127 PDF (223.79 K) | ||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2018.57757 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Rana S. Galal1; Ahmed S. El Kadi2; Mona M. Ghoneim3 | ||
| 1Bachelor of Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt. | ||
| 2Professor of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt. | ||
| 3Assistant Professor of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt. | ||
| Abstract | ||
| INTRODUCTION: Nanotechnology was used in the development of glass ionomer cements to provide some value added features not typically associated with this type of restorative materials. OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to evaluate the surface roughness and solubility of a nano filled resin modified glass ionomer cement and to compare it with a conventional type of glass-ionomer cement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty disc shaped specimens were prepared using Teflon split mold according to manufacturer instructions. Specimens were divided into two group :Group A (20 specimens prepared from Ketac Nano) and Group B (20 specimens prepared from Ketac Molar). Each group was subdivided into two subgroups of 10 specimens each. Twenty specimens from different subgroups were subjected to surface roughness test. The other twenty specimens from different subgroups were subjected to solubility test. Data were collected, tabulated and statistically analyzed. RESULTS: Concerning surface roughness; Ketac Nano showed statistically significantly lower surface roughness than Ketac Molar where the mean values were 0.27 ± 0.10 μm and 0.48 ± 0.14μm respectively. Concerning solubilty; Ketac Nano showed statistically significant lower solubility than Ketac molar where the mean values were 4.25 ± 1.87 and 12.16 ± 2.89 μg/mm3 respectively. CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that the addition of nano-fillers to RMGI seemed to decrease its surface roughness and to improve but without completely eliminating the solubility of the nano-glass ionomers | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Surface roughness; Solubility; nano glass ionomers | ||
| References | ||
|
1. Wilson AD, Kent BE. New translucent cement for dentistry. Br J Dent. 1972; 132:133-5.
2. Davidson CL. Advances in Glass Ionomer Cements. J Appl Oral Sci. 2006; 14:3-9.
3. Burgess JO. Fluoride-releasing materials and their adhesive characteristics. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2008; 29:82- 94.
4. Xie D, Brantley WA, Culbertson BM, Wang G. Mechanical properties and microstructures of glass-ionomer cements. Dent Mater. 2000; 16:129–38.
5. Roulet JF. Benefits and disadvantages of tooth-coloured alternatives to amalgam. J Dent. 1997; 25:459–73.
6. Sidhu SK. Glass-ionomer cement restorative materials: a sticky subject. Aust J Dent. 2011; 56: 23–30.
7. Sasaki MT, Silva RCSP, Araújo MAM, Krabbe DFM, Damian AJ. Evaluation of surface roughness of glass ionomer cements with different finishing and polishing systems. Rev Odontol UNESP. 2000; 29:81-92.
8. Berg JH. Glass ionomer cement. Pediatr Dent. 2002; 24:430-8.
9. De Witte MC, Maeyer EP, Verbeeck RH. Surface roughening of glass ionomer cements by neutral NaF solutions. Biomater. 2003; 24:1995-2000.
10.Raggio DP, Rock RO, Imparato JP. Evaluation of microleakage five glass ionomer cements used in atraumatic restorative treatment (ART). J Bras Odontopediatr Odontol Bebe. 2002; 5:370-7.
11. Frencken JE, Van´t Hof MA, Van Amerogen WE, Holmgren CJ. Effectiveness of single surface ART restorations in the permanent dentition: a meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2004; 83:120-3.
12. Leinfelder KF. Glass ionomers: current clinical developments. Am J Dent Assoc. 1993; 124:62-4.
13. Pitkethy M. Nanoparticles as building blocks. Mater Today. 2003; 6:36-42.
14. Korkmaz Y, Ozel E, Attar N, OzgeBicer C. Influence of different conditioning methods on the shear bond strength of novel light-curing nano-ionomer restorative to enamel and dentin. Lasers Med Sci. 2010; 25:861-6.
15. Markovic DL, Petrovic BB, Peric TO. Fluoride content and recharge ability of five glass ionomer dental materials. BMC Oral Health. 2008; 28:8-21.
16.Bishara S E, Ajlouni R, Soliman M M, Oonsombat C, Laffoon J F, Warren J. Evaluation of a new nano-filled restorative material for bonding orthodontic brackets. W J Orthod. 2007; 8:8–12.
17. Najeeb S, Khurshid Z, Zafar MS, Khan AS, Sana Zohaib, Nuñez Martí JM, et al. Modifications in Glass Ionomer Cements: Nano-Sized Fillers and Bioactive Nanoceramics. Int J Mol Sci. 2016; 17: 1-14.
18.International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Dental resin based restorative materials.1988; Specification No: 4049, 8-9.
19. Turssi CP, Magalhães CS, Serra MC, Rodrigues JA. Surface roughness assessment of resin-based materials during brushing preceded by pH cycling simulations. Oper Dent. 2001; 26:576-84.
20.Bollen CML, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater. 1997; 13:258-69
21.Rios D, Honório HM, Araújo PA, Machado MA. Wear and superficial roughness of glass ionomer cements used as sealants, after simulated tooth brushing. Braz Oral Res. 2002; 16:343-8.
22.Bala O, Arisu HD, Yikilgan I, Arslan S, Gullu A. Evaluation of surface roughness and hardness of different glass ionomer cements. Eur J Dent. 2012; 6:79–86.
23. Sidhu SK, Sherriff M, Watson TF. In vivo changes in roughness of resin modified glass ionomer materials. Dent Mater. 1997; 13:208-13.
24. Pedrini D, Gaetti Garden JR, Mori GG. Influence of fluoride application on the surface roughness of glass ionomer Vitremer and microbial adhesion to this material. Pesq Odontol Bras. 2001; 15:70-6.
25. Pedrini D, Candido MSM, Rodrigues AL. Analysis of surface roughness of glass-ionomer cements and compomer. J Oral Rehabil. 2003; 30:714-9.
26.Bagheri R, Burrow MF, Tyas MJ. Surface characteristics of aesthetic restorative materials – an SEM study. J Oral Rehabil. 2007; 34:68–76.
27. Wilder AD, Swift EJ, May KN, Thompson JY, McDougal RA. Effect of finishing technique on the microleakage and surface texture of resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials. J Dent. 2000; 28:367-73.
28. Ozgunaltay G, Yazıcı AR, Gorucu J. Effect of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of new toothcolored restoratives. J Oral Rehabil. 2003; 30:218–24.
29.Reis AF, Giannini M, Lovadino JR, Ambrosano GM. Effects of various finishing systems on the surface roughness and staining susceptibility of packable composite resins. Dent Mater. 2003; 19:12–8.
30. Leitão J, Hegdahl T. On the measuring of roughness. Acta Odontol Scand. 1981; 39:379-84. 31. Yap AUJ, Teo JCM, Teoh SH. Comparative wear resistance of reinforced glass ionomer restorative materials. Oper Dent. 2000; 26:343-8.
32. Hussein TA, Bakar WZ, Ab Ghani Z, Dasmawati M. The assessment of surface roughness and microleakage of eroded tooth-colored dental restorative materials. J Conserv Dent. 2014; 17:531-5.
33. Ozdemir-Ozenen D, Sungurtekin E , Issever H, Sandalli N. Surface roughness of fluoride-releasing restorative materials after topical fluoride application. Eur J Pediatr Dent. 2013; 14:68-72.
34. Soares PB, Magalhaes D, Silverio J, Silva JR, Goncalves JL, Soares CJ. Surface roughness of restorative materials used to restore cervical lesions. Dent mater. 2012; 28:58.
35. Mohamad D, Ab-Ghani Z, Sidek MM, Zaldi MA. Surface roughness of tooth coloured materials after streptococcus mutans culture. J Advances Med Rese. 2014; 1:74-7.
36.Ragab HA, Niazy MA, Hafez RM. Influence of storage media and power-tooth brushing on contemporary restoratives surface-roughness. E D J. 2013; 59:1-10.
37. Singh AK, Shivanna V, Shivamurthy GB, Kedia NB, Yadav AB, Yadav SK. Comparative surface roughness evaluation of a novel aesthetic restorative material using Profilometer - an in vitro study. J Res Dent Care. 2014; 1:9-17.
38. Momesso MG, Da Silva RC, Pettorossi JC, Molina C, Navarro RS, Ribeiro SJ. “In vitro” surface roughness of different glass ionomer cements indicated for ART restorations. Braz J Oral Sci. 2010; 9:77-80.
39. Zaazou MH, Ibrahim MA, Nagi SM. The effect of surface sealant on microleakage and solubility of nano glass ionomer restoration. J Sci Res. 2013; 9:1993-8.
40. Dinakaran S. Sorption and solubility characteristics of compomer, conventional and resin modified glass-ionomer immersed in various media. J Dent Med Sci. 2014; 13:41-5. | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 311 PDF Download: 972 |
||
