ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to analyze the diametral tensile strengths of three resin-modified restorative glass ionomer cements--Vitremer, Fuji II LC and Photac Fil and one compomer--Dyract. They were tested at 1 hour, 1 day and 1 week. Kratos testing machine was used to load the specimens at a cross-head speed of 0.5 mm/min. The data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test that showed statistically significant differences among the materials. The tested materials presented an increase in strength from 1 hour to 1 week and were as follows for each material respectively: Vitremer (19.22-27.29), Fuji II LC (23.91-28.67), Photac Fil (19.35-22.86), Dyract (28.83-46.95). Dyract presented the highest strengths.
Subject(s)
Compomers , Dental Bonding , Glass Ionomer Cements , Analysis of Variance , Composite Resins , Materials Testing , Methacrylates , Polymers/chemistry , Resins, Synthetic , Silicates , Statistics, Nonparametric , Tensile Strength , Time FactorsABSTRACT
The effectiveness of four surface protectors for resin-modified glass ionomer cements was evaluated by spectrophotometrically determining dye uptake. Ninety specimens, 3.0 mm in diameter and 1.0 mm in height, were made with Photac-Fil, Fuji II LC and Vitremer and divided into six groups for each material. Positive and negative controls were not protected while experimental specimens were protected with proprietary glaze, nail varnish, flowable resin and glaze. The discs were immersed in 0.1% methylene blue solution for 10 minutes after mixing, except for those negative control specimens that were immersed in deionized-water. After 24 hours, the specimens were washed and the protectors trimmed with Sof-Lex discs. The specimens were then removed from the matrixes and individually placed in 1.5 mL of 65% nitric acid for five hours. The absorbance was determined spectrophotometrically at 590 nm. Dye uptake was expressed in microgram dye/specimen. The data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey-Kramer tests. All surface protectors tested were effective. For Fuji II LC and Vitremer no differences were observed among tested protections. For Photac-Fil, nail varnish showed better performance than the proprietary glaze.
