Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2012; 06(01): 079-086
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1698934
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Evaluation of surface roughness and hardness of different glass ionomer cements

Oya Bala
1   University of Gazi, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Operative & Restorative Dentistry, Ankara, TURKIYE
,
Deniz Hacer Arisu
2   Abant İzzet Baysal University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics, Bolu, TURKIYE
,
Ihsan Yikilgan
3   University of Gazi, Faculty of Technical Education, Department of Engine Education, Ankara, TURKIYE
,
Seda Arslan
1   University of Gazi, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Operative & Restorative Dentistry, Ankara, TURKIYE
,
Abdulkadir Gullu
3   University of Gazi, Faculty of Technical Education, Department of Engine Education, Ankara, TURKIYE
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
30 September 2019 (online)

Also available at
 PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate surface roughness and hardness of a nanofiller GIC, a resin-modified GIC, three conventional GICs, and a silver-reinforced GIC

Methods: For each material, 11 specimens were prepared and then stored in distilled water at 37 °C for 24 h. The surface roughness of 5 specimens was measured using a surface profilometer before polishing and after polishing with coarse, medium, fine, superfine aluminum oxide abrasive Sof-Lex discs respectively. The hardness of the upper surfaces of the remaining 6 specimens was measured with a Vickers microhardness measuring instrument.

Results: All tested GICs showed lower surface roughness values after the polishing procedure. Surface finish of nanofiller GIC was smoother than the other tested GICs after polishing. This was followed by resin-modified GIC, Fuji II LC; then silver-reinforced GIC, Argion Molar, conventional GICs, Aqua Ionofil Plus, Fuji IX, and Ionofil Molar, respectively. The result of the hardness test indicated that the microhardness value of silver-reinforced GIC was greater than that of the other GICs. When the hardness values of all tested GICs were compared, the differences between materials (except Aqua Ionofil Plus with Ionofil Molar and Ketac N100 with Fuji II LC (P>.05)) were found statistically significant (P<.05).

Conclusions: According to the results of this study, it can be concluded that the differences in the composition of GICs may affect their surface roughness and hardness. (Eur J Dent 2012;6:79-86)

Key words

Glass ionomer cement - surface roughness - hardness
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 McCabe JF. Resin-modified glass-ionomers. Biomater 1998;19:521-527.
  • 2 Modena KC, Casas-Apayco LC, Atta MT, Costa CA, Hebling J, Sipert CR, Navarro MF Santos CF. Cytotoxicity and biocompatibility of direct and indirect pulp capping materials. J Appl Oral Sci 2009;17:544-554.
  • 3 Glasspoole EA, Erickson RL, Davidson CL. Effect of surface treatments on the bond strength of glass ionomers to enamel. Dent Mater 2002;18:454-462.
  • 4 Bala O, Uçtaşli M, Can H, Türköz E, Can M. Fluoride release from various restorative materials. J Nihon Univ Sch Dent 1997;39:123-127.
  • 5 Pereira LC, Nunes MC, Dibb RG, Powers JM, Roulet JF, Navarro MF. Mechanical properties and bond strength of glass-ionomer cements. J Adhesive Dent 2002;4:73-80.
  • 6 Hickel RA, Folwaczny M. Various forms of glass ionomers and compomers. Oper Dent 2001;Supplement (6):177-190.
  • 7 Di Lenarda R, Cadenaro M, De Stefano DE. Cervical compomer restorations: The role of cavity etching in a 48-month clinical evaluation. Oper Dent 2000;25:382-387
  • 8 Palma-Dibb RG, Palma AE, Matson E, Chinelatti MA, Ramos RP. Microhardness of esthetic restorative materials at different depths. Mater Res 2002;6:85-90.
  • 9 Williams JA, Billington RW, Pearson GJ. The comparative strengths of commercial glass-ionomer cements with and without metal additions. Br Dent J 1992;172:279-282.
  • 10 Fleming GJ, Burke FJ, Watson DJ, Owen FJ. Materials for restoration of primary teeth: I. Conventional materials and early glass ionomers. Dent Update 2001;28:486-491.
  • 11 Berg JH. The continuum of restorative materials in pediatric dentistry - a review for the clinician. Pediat Dent 1998;20:93-100.
  • 12 Gladys S, Van Meerbeek B, Braem M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Comparative pysico-mechanical characterization of new hybrid restorative materials with conventional glass-ionomer and resin composite restorative materials. J Dent Res 1997;76:883-894.
  • 13 Bollen CM, Papaioanno W, Van Eldere J, Schepers E, Quirynen M, van Steenberghe D. The influence of abutment surface roughness on plaque accumulation and peri-implant mucositis. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:201–211.
  • 14 Weitman RT, Eames WB. Plaque accumulation on composite surfaces after various finishing procedures. JADA 1975;91:101-106.
  • 15 Shintani H, Satou J, Satou N, Hayashihara H, Inoue T. Effects of various finishing on staining and accumulation of Streptococcus mutans HS-6 on composite resins. Dent Mater 1985;1:225-227.
  • 16 Pedrini D, Candido MSM, Rodrigues AL. Analysis of surface roughness of glass-ionomer cements and compomer. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30:714-719.
  • 17 Bagheri R, Burrow MF. Tyas MJ. Surface characteristics of aesthetic restorative materials – an SEM study. J Oral Rehabil 2007;34:68-76.
  • 18 Yap AUJ, Sau CW, Lye KW. Effects of finishing time on surface characteristics of tooth-coloured restoratives. J Oral Rehabil 1998;25:456-461.
  • 19 Tate WH, Powers JM. Surface roughness of composites and hybrid ionomers. Oper Dent 1996;21:53-58.
  • 20 Ozgunaltay G, Yazıcı AR, Gorucu J. Effect of finishing and polishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of new tooth-colored restoratives. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30:218-224.
  • 21 Wilder AD Jr, Swift EJ Jr, May KN Jr, Thompson JY, Mc-Dougal RA. Effect of finishing technique on the microleakage and surface texture of resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials. J Dent 2000;28:367-373.
  • 22 Reis AF, Giannini M, Lovadino JR, Ambrosano GM. Effects of various finishing systems on the surface roughness and staining susceptibility of packable composite resins. Dent Mater 2003;19:12-18.
  • 23 Pitkethy M. Nanoparticles as building blocks. Materials Today 2003;6:36-42.
  • 24 Yap, S, Yap A. Polish retention of new aesthetic restorative materials over time. Singapore Dental J 2004;26:39-43.
  • 25 Tjan AH, Morgan DL. Metal reinforced glass ionomers: their flexural and bond strengths to tooth substrate. J Prosthet Dent 1988;59:137-141.
  • 26 Beyls HMF, Verbeek RMH, Marten LC, Lemaitre L. Compressive strength of some polyalkenoates with or without dental amalgam alloy incorporation. Dent Mater 1991;7:151-154.
  • 27 Kerby RE, Bleiholder RF. Physical properties of stainlesssteel and silver-reinforced glass ionomer cements. J Dent Res 1991;70:1358-1361.
  • 28 Williams JA, Billington RW. Changes in compressive strength of glass ionomer materials with respect to time periods of 24 h to 4 months. J Oral Rehabil 1991;18:163-168.
  • 29 Sarkar NK. Metal-matrix interface in reinforced glass ionomers. Dent Mater 1999;15:421-425.
  • 30 Yap AUJ, Teo JCM, Teoh SH. Comparative wear resistance of reinforced glass ionomer restorative materials. Oper Dent 2000;26:343-348.
  • 31 Xie D, Brantley WA, Culbertson BM, Wang G. Mechanical properties and microstructures of glass-ionomer cements. Dent Mater 2000;16:129-138.
  • 32 Roulet JF, Walti C. Influence of oral fluid on composite resin and glass-ionomer cement. J Prosthet Dent 1984;52:182-189.
  • 33 Turssi CP, Hara AT, Serra MC, Rodrigues AL. Effect of storage media upon the surface micromorphology of resinbased restorative materials. J Oral Rehabil 2002;29:864-871.
  • 34 Nagaraja UP, Kishore G. Glass ionomer cement – the different generations. Trends Biomaterial Artif Organs 2005;18:158-165.
  • 35 Aliping-McKenzie M, Linden RW, Nicholson JW. The effect of saliva on surface hardness and water sorption of glass-ionomers and "compomers". J Mater Sci Mater Med 2003;14:869-873.
  • 36 Ellakuria J, Triana R, Mínguez N, Soler I, Ibaseta G, Maza J, García-Godoy F. Effect of one-year water storage on the surface microhardness of resin-modified versus conventional glass-ionomer cements. Dent Mater 2003;19:286-290