IADR 95th

-12-Fuji IX, EQUIA Forte3254 Compressive Strength Measurement of Modern Commercial Restorative Glass-IonomerCementsPoster Presentation11:00 AM–12:15 PM Mar 25, 2017 CC, First FloorAuthors:Ana Paula Magalhães(Presenter)Bauru Dental SchoolRafael Menezes-Silva, Bauru Dental SchoolLígiaBueno, Bauru Dental SchoolAna FláviaBorges, Bauru Dental SchoolSorayaCoelho Leal, University of BrasíliaRenataPascotto, State University of MaringaRenataPascotto, State University of MaringaMaria Fidelade Lima Navarro, Bauru Dental SchoolAbstract: Objectives: To measure and compare the compressive strength (CS) of conventional restorative glass-ionomercements (GIC).Methods: Thirteen GICs [Vidrion-SSWhite-Brazil (V), Maxxion-FGM-Brazil (Ma), Vitro Molar-DFL-Brazil (VM), Fuji IX-GC-Japan (F9), KetacMolar Easy Mix-3M ESPE-U.S.A. (KM), BioglassR-Brazil (VM), Fuji IX-GC-Japan (F9), KetacMolar Easy Mix-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 CS according to ISO 9917-1:2007 in a universal testing machine. Materials were prepared (n=5) in accordance to manufacturer’s instructions, and inserted into stainless steel moulds (6.0mm high and 4.0mm diameter). After normality (Shapiro-Wilk) and homogeneity of variance (Levene) tests, results were submitted to ANOVA and Tukeytest for multiple comparisons (p<0.05). Values obtained were also compared to ISO requirements for dental cements.were also compared to ISO requirements for dental cements.Results: Of all cements tested, four commercial brands did not achieve ISO requirements for compressive strength in MPa(minimum 100): B (43.11±7.94), VF (77.79±4.40), Ma (85.19±2.57), and Ig(99.66±11.37); with significant difference only between B and Ig(p=0.003). All other cements corresponded to these requirements. From the highest strength to the lowest the values obtained were: EF (207.65±9.67) > F9 (189.51±27.75) > KM (166.32±14.12) > IP (165.51±9.69) > VM (158.03±19.31) > CR (149.85±16.73) > V (149.67±48.68) > R (144.84±28.32) > IZ (128.86±9.01). The five best strength results presented no statistical difference (p>0.05).presented no statistical difference (p>0.05).Conclusions: According to the results, it can be concluded that four brands of GIC did not achieve ISO requirements. Other properties must be tested aiming to classify restorative GICs to better indicate them for areas subjected to different occlusalloads.Student PresenterThis abstract is based on research that was funded entirely or partially by an outside source:GC CorporationDisclosure Statement:Disclosure 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.Signed by Ana Paula MagalhãesReprinted with permission from the Journal of Dental Research, J Dent Res 96 (Spec Iss A):-12-abstract number 3254, https://iadr2017.zerista.com/event/member/336456, 2017

元のページ  ../index.html#12