IADR 95th

11/75

-11-Fuji IX, EQUIA Forte3779 Measurement of DiametralTensile Strength of Commercial Restorative Glass-IonomerCementPoster Presentation3:45 PM–5:00 PM Mar 25, 2017CC, First FloorAuthors:Ana FláviaBorges (Presenter)Bauru School of DentistrySorayaLeal, University of BrasiliaRafael Menezes-Silva, Bauru Dental SchoolAna Paula Magalhães, University of São PauloLígiaBueno, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São PauloLígiaBueno, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São PauloRenataPascotto, State University of MaringaMaria Fidelade Lima Navarro, University of Sao PauloAbstract: Objectives: The aim of this study was to measure and compare the diametraltensile strength (DTS) of conventional restorative glass-ionomercements (GIC)Methods: Thirteen conventional restorative GICs [Vidrion-SSWhite-Brazil (V), Maxxion-FGM-Brazil Methods: Thirteen conventional restorative GICs [Vidrion-SSWhite-Brazil (V), Maxxion-FGM-Brazil (Ma), Vitro Molar-DFL-Brazil (VM), Fuji IX-GC-Japan (F9), KetacMolar EasyMix-3M ESPE-U.S.A. (KM), BioglassR-Biodinâmica-Brazil (B), ChemFilRock-Dentsply-U.S.A. (CR), EquiaForte-GC-Japan (EF), Ion Z-FGM-Brazil (IZ), Ionglass-Maquira-Brazil (Ig), IonofilPlus-Voco-Germany (IP), Riva Self Cure-SDI-Australia (R), Vitro Fil-DFL-Brazil (VF)] were evaluated for DTS in a universal testing machine. The materials were prepared (n=5) in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, and inserted into moulds made of stainless steel with internal dimensions of 3.0±0.1 mm in height and 6.0±0.1 mm in diameter. After the normality (Shapiro-Wilk) and homogeneity of variance (Levene) tests, results were submitted to ANOVA and Tukeytest for homogeneity of variance (Levene) tests, results were submitted to ANOVA and Tukeytest for multiple comparisons (p<0.05)Results: Values obtained for DTS (MPa) of the GICs varied greatly with statistical difference among them (p<0.05). The GICs V (13.72±4.22), KM (13.09±3.97), CR (13.03±1.69), EF (12.06±1.98), R (10.89±1.09) and F9 (10.22±1.22) presented the highest DTS and were considered superior to the other GICs testedConclusions: The restorative GICs evaluated presented a wide range of DTS showing that although they are all classified as restorative materials, they differ greatly in regard to DTSThis abstract is based on research that was funded entirely or partially by an outside This abstract is based on research that was funded entirely or partially by an outside source:GC CorporationDisclosure Statement:The submitter must disclose the names of the organizations with which any author have a relationship, the nature of the relationship, and the clinical or research area involved. The following is submitted: NONEI have read the IADR policy on licensing.I have read the IADR policy on licensing.Signed by Ana FláviaBorgesReprinted with permission from the Journal of Dental Research, J Dent Res 96 (Spec Iss A):-11-abstract number 3779, https://iadr2017.zerista.com/event/member/330620, 2017