Revista de Odontologia da UNESP
https://revodontolunesp.com.br/article/doi/10.1590/1807-2577.10915
Revista de Odontologia da UNESP
Original Article

Análise da dureza de um novo material restaurador para ART: Glass Carbomer

Analysis of the hardness of a new restorative material for ART: Glass Carbomer

Lopes, Célia Maria Condeixa de França; Schubert, Edward Werner; Reis, Alessandra; Wambier, Denise Stadler

Downloads: 2
Views: 532

Abstract

Objetivo: Este estudo avaliou a microdureza de dois materiais ionoméricos – Glass Carbomer (GC-GCP Dental) e Riva Light Cure (RL-SDI) ‒ em combinação com quatro unidades fotopolimerizadoras (Carbo LED lamp, GCP-Dental; Demi LED curing light, Kerr; Poli Wireless, Kavo; Radii Plus, SDI). Material e método: Foram confeccionados 80 corpos de prova seguindo a orientação dos fabricantes, sendo 40 para cada material ionomérico e, para cada 10 corpos de prova, uma das unidades fotopolimerizadoras foi utilizada. Após sete dias de armazenamento em água destilada e temperatura ambiente, os 80 corpos de prova foram submetidos ao teste de microdureza Vickers (microdurômetro HMV 2T). Cinco indentações foram realizadas em cada corpo de prova (centro, extremidades direita e esquerda, e superior e inferior). O ensaio foi realizado sob uma carga de 100 gramas, com tempo de penetração de dez segundos. Resultado: Independentemente da unidade fotopolimerizadora, o Riva Light Cure (RL-SDI) apresentou menor microdureza que o material Glass Carbomer (GC-GCP-Dental). A microdureza do Glass Carbomer (GC-GCP-Dental) foi influenciada pelo tipo de unidade fotopolimerizadora utilizada como fonte de calor. A análise de variância e o Teste de Tuckey (p<0,05) mostraram que a interação dos fatores ‘material’ vs. ‘unidade fotopolimerizadora’ (p<0,001) e os fatores principais ‘material’ (p<0,001) e ‘unidade fotopolimerizadora’ (p=0,002) foram estatisticamente significantes. Conclusão: O material ionomérico Glass Cabomer (GCP- Dental) apresentou valor de microdureza significativamente superior quando comparado com o cimento de ionômero de vidro modificado por resina Riva Light Cure (SDI), independentemente da unidade fotopolimerizadora utilizada.

Keywords

Cimento de ionômero de vidro, materiais dentários, teste de dureza, unidades fotopolimerizadoras.

Resumo

Objective: This study evaluated the microhardness of two encapsulated ionomer materials – Glass Carbomer (GC-GCP Dental) and Riva Light Cure (RL-SDI) in combination with four light curing units (Carbo LED lamp, GCP-Dental, Demi LED curing light, Kerr, Poli Wireless, Kavo, Radii Plus, SDI). Material and method: Eighty specimens were prepared following the manufacturer’s guidelines, 40 for each ionomer material and for 10 specimens, one light curing unit was used. After 7 days of storage in distilled water and at room temperature, 80 specimens were tested with the Vickers hardness (microhardness HMV 2T, Shimadzu, Japan). Five indentations were performed on each specimen (center, right, left, top and bottom). The test was carried out under a load of 100 g, with a 10 second penetration time. Result: Independent of the curing unit the Riva Light Cure (RL-SDI) obtained the lower hardness than the material Glass Carbomer (GC-GCP-Dental). The microhardness of Glass Carbomer (GC-GCP-Dental) was influenced by the type of curing unit used as a heat treatment. The analysis of variance and Tukey test (p<0.05) showed that the interaction of factors material vs. curing unit (p<0.001), the main factor material (p<0.001) and curing unit (p=0.002) were statistically significant. Conclusion: The ionomeric material Glass Carbomer (GCP-Dental) had significantly higher hardness value when compared with glass ionomer modified by resin Riva Light Cure (SDI), regardless of the light curing unit used.

Palavras-chave

Glass ionomer cements, dental materials, hardness tests, curing lights dental.

References

1. Zanata RG, Fagundes TC, Freitas MC, Lauris JR, Navarro MF. Ten-year survival of ART restorations in permanent posterior teeth. Clin Oral Investig. 2011 Apr;15(2):265-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-009-0378-x. PMid:20140470.

2. Amorin RG, Leal SC, Frencken JE. Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2012 Apr;16(2):429-41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-011-0513-3. PMid:21274581.

3. Frencken JE, Leal SC, Navarro MF. Twenty-five-year atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach: a comprehensive overview. Clin Oral Investig. 2012 Oct;16(5):1337-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0783-4. PMid:22824915.

4. Eden E, Topaloglu-Ak A, Frencken JE, Van’t Hof M. Survival of self-etch adhesive class II composite restorations using ART and conventional cavity preparations in primary molars. Am J Dent. 2006 Dec;19(6):359-63. PMid:17212078.

5. Franca C, Colares V, Van Amerogen EV. Two-year evaluation of the atraumatic restorative treatment approach in primary molars class I and II restorations. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2011 Jul;21(4):249-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-263X.2011.01125.x. PMid:21401749.

6. Menne-Happ U, Ilie N. Effect of gloss and heat on the mechanical behaviour of a glass carbomer cement. J Dent. 2013 Mar;41(3):223-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2012.11.005. PMid:23174652.

7. Koenraads H, Van der Kroon G, Frencken JE. Compressive strength of two newly developed glass-ionomer materials for use with the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) approach in class II cavities. Dent Mater. 2009 Apr;25(4):551-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2008.12.008. PMid:19211138.

8. Chen X, Du M, Fan M, Mulder J, Huysmans MC, Frencken JE. Effectiveness of two new types of sealants: retention after 2 years. Clin Oral Investig. 2012 Oct;16(5):1443-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-011-0633-9. PMid:22124610.

9. Kleverlaan CJ, van Duinen RNB, Feilzer AJ. Mechanical properties of glass ionomer cements affected by curing methods. Dent Mater. 2004 Jan;20(1):45-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(03)00067-8. PMid:14698773.

10. Algera TJ, Kleverlaan CJ, Gee AJ, Prahl-Andersen B, Feilzer AJ. The influence of accelerating the setting rate by ultrasound or heat on the bond strength of glass-ionomers used as orthodontic bracket cements. Eur J Orthod. 2005 Oct;27(5):472-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cji041. PMid:16049039.

11. van Duinen RN, Kleverlaan CJ, Gee AJ, Werner A, Feilzer AJ. Early and long-term wear of “fast-set” conventional glass-ionomer cements. Dent Mater. 2005 Aug;21(8):716-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2004.09.007. PMid:16026667.

12. Ellakuria J, Triana R, Mínguez N, Soler I, Ibaseta G, Maza J, et al. Effect of one-year water storage on the surface microhardness of resin-modified versus conventional glass ionomer cements. Dent Mater. 2003 Jun;19(4):286-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(02)00042-8. PMid:12686292.

13. 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 Jan;6(1):79-86. PMid:22229011.

14. Cattani-Lorente MA, Dupuis V, Payan J, Moya F, Meyer JM. Effect of water on the physical properties of resin-modified glass ionomer cements. Dent Mater. 1999 Jan;15(1):71-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(99)00016-0. PMid:10483398.

15. McLean JW. Cermet cements. J Am Dent Assoc. 1990 Jan;120(1):43-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1990.0021. PMid:2104882.

16. Gorseta K, Glavina D, Skrinjaric I. Microhardness of the new developed Glasscarbomer cement. J Dent Res. 2010;89(Spec Iss B):2273.

17. Xie D, Brantley WA, Culbertson BM, Wang G. Mechanical properties and microstructures of glass-ionomer cements. Dent Mater. 2000 Mar;16(2):129-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(99)00093-7. PMid:11203534.

18. Menne-Happ U, Ilie N. Effect of heat application on the mechanical behaviour of glass ionomer cements. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(2):643-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-1005-4. PMid:23740319.

588019e27f8c9d0a098b53a1 rou Articles
Links & Downloads

Rev. odontol. UNESP

Share this page
Page Sections