medigraphic.com
ISSN 1870-199X (Print)
Órgano oficial de la Facultad de Odontología, UNAM

2017, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Rev Odont Mex 2017; 21 (2)

Compressive strength of glass ionomer and composite resin. In vitro study

Blanco LS, Frías TS, Tarón DA, Bustillo AJM, Díaz CA

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 109-113
PDF size: 247.88 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To assess compressive strength of glass ionomer and composite resin restorations in premolar class I cavities. Material and methods: In vitro experimental study to assess compressive strength of two types of stomatological restoration materials, using as object of study 52 bi-radicular premolars. Samples were distributed into four groups with different characteristics such as restorative material and cavity depth (2-4 mm). Glass ionomer and composite resins were the used restorative materials. Grouped samples were subjected to a compressive vertical force using a EZ-S SHIMADZU texturometer, until achieving the material’s fracture. Obtained data were subjected to the Shapiro-Wilk test in order to assess data normalcy, null hypothesis was rejected. Total data analysis was conducted with t-Student test for independent samples. Results: Data obtained after assessing superficial hardness of different restorative materials showed the existence of statistical differences which favored composite resin when compared to glass ionomer at both depths (p = 6.908 × 10-11 and p = 0.000). In intra-group comparison, a significant different was found between both groups (resin and glass ionomer) at different depths (p = 0.000155887 and p = 0.00257443). Conclusion: Assessment of 4 mm tooth cavities restored with Tetric N-Ceram resin revealed greater hardness than those accomplished with Vitremer® resin at 2 and 4 mm and with the same resin at 2 mm depth.


REFERENCES

  1. Hebbal M, Ankola AV. Dental caries, salivary parameters and plaque scores as caries risk predictors among 12 year old school children - A follow up study. IJCRIMPH. 2012; 4 (5): 544-554.

  2. Chun KJ, Lee JY. Comparative study mechanical properties of dental restorative materials and dental hard tissues in compressive loads. J Dent Biomech. 2014; 5: 1758736014555246.

  3. Tauquino J. Evaluación in vitro de la microdureza superficial de una resina compuesta microhíbrida, una resina compuesta fluida, y un cemento ionómero vítreo de restauración frente a la acción de una bebida carbonatada. 2002. Disponible en: http://cybertesis.unmsm.edu.pe/handle/cybertesis/1135

  4. Gutiérrez B, Planells P. Actualización en odontología mínimamente invasiva: remineralización e infiltración de lesiones incipientes de caries. Cient Dent. 2010; 7: 183-191.

  5. Lahoud SV. Factores determinantes que ejercen influencia sobre el rendimiento clínico de restauraciones con resina. Odontología Sanmarquina. 2002; 1 (10): 39-40.

  6. Tarón-Dunoyer A, Frías-Tarón S, Blanco-Lerech S, Camacho-Vergara A, Bustillo JM, Díaz-Caballero A. Comparación de la dureza superficial de diferentes tipos de materiales restauradores en premolares birradiculares, un estudio in vitro. Av Odontoestomatol. 2015; 31 (6): 355-361.

  7. Carrillo-Sánchez C. Revisión de los principios de preparación de cavidades. Extensión por prevención o prevención de la extensión. Rev ADM. 2008; 65 (5): 263-271.

  8. 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 (1): 79-86.

  9. Fron-Chabouis H, Prot C, Fonteneau C, Nasr K, Chabreron O, Cazier S et al. Efficacy of composite versus ceramic inlays and onlays: study protocol for the CECOIA randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2013; 14: 278.

  10. Suárez R, Lozano F. Comparison of surface hardness of nanotechnology composites according to polishing time: in vitro. Rev Estomatol Herediana. 2014; 24 (1): 11-16.

  11. Son SA, Roh HM, Hur B, Kwon YH, Park JK. The effect of resin thickness on polymerization characteristics of silorane-based composite resin. Restor Dent Endod. 2014; 39 (4): 310-318.

  12. Shanthala GS, Xavier MK. The effect of thermocycling on fracture toughness and hardness of different core build up materials. Indian J Dent Res. 2013; 24 (6): 653-658.

  13. Erazo L, Vinasco FE, Ruan-Antury JD. Comparation of the microhardness vickers of the self-etch adhesive cement relyx unicem and dual cement relyx arc. Col J Dent Res. 2010; 1 (3): 68-76.

  14. Fukuhara NM, Quintana del Solar M, Aguilar MJ. Comparación in vitro del efecto del pulido en la morfología superficial de tres resinas compuestas. Rev Estomatol Herediana. 2013; 23 (4): 185-192.

  15. Gil-García S, Mosquera-Arenas S, Hoyos-Arias LA, Domínguez-Jiménez T, Arango LM, Gallego CL. Cambios en la resistencia compresiva del ionómero de vidrio al ser grabado con ácido ortofosfórico. Rev Nal Odont. 2013; 9 (16): 67-73.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com