Glass ionomer cement hardness after different materials for surface protection

Brito, C.R., Velasco, L.G., Bonini, G.A.V.C., Imparato, J.C.P. and Raggio, D.P. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0048-2068 2010. Glass ionomer cement hardness after different materials for surface protection. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research - Part A 93 (1) , pp. 243-246. 10.1002/jbm.a.32524

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the Knoop hardness of high viscous glass ionomer cement (GIC) Ketac™ Molar Easy Mix (3M ESPE, Saint Paul, USA) submitted to different types of compounds for surface protection. Sixty specimens of GIC were made in PVC molds with 7.5 mm diameter and 2.5 mm thickness. Divided in 6 groups: G1, Control (no protection); G2, Cavitine® (Copal varnish); G3, Magic® bond (Adhesive); G4, Adper™ Single Bond 2 (Single bottle adhesive); G5, Solid Petroleum Jelly; G6, Nail Varnish. The surface protection was applied after initial setting reaction. The specimens were immersed in deionized water, at 37°C, for 24 h. The surfaces were polished in a rotation machine (Aropol 2V). The hardness test was accomplished in a Digital Microhardness tester HVS-100. In each specimen five indentations were done and repeated after 30 days and 4 months, under the same conditions. The results were submitted to Two-way ANOVA and Tukey Test. The only material that differed from the control group was the nail varnish (p < 0.001), with the other materials showing no significant difference from the control group. It was concluded that the best material for surface protection of GIC was the nail varnish, but because of possible harmful effects, petrolleum jelly could be a better option.

Item Type:	Article
Date Type:	Publication
Status:	Published
Schools:	Dentistry
Last Modified:	10 Nov 2022 10:56
URI:	https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/148730

Citation Data

Cited 35 times in Scopus. View in Scopus. Powered By Scopus® Data

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item