Cam karbomer simanın fiziksel ve mekanik özelliklerinin in vitro koşullar altında değerlendirilmesi

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı; cam karbomer simanın mikrogerilim bağlanma dayanımı ve mikrosertlik değerlerinin geleneksel cam iyonomer siman ve kompomerle karşılaştırılarak değerlendirilmesidir.Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bağlanma dayanımı testinde 60 adet süt 2. molar dişi kullanılmıştır. Bu amaçla dentine uygulanan restoratif materyallerin dentine bağlanma kuvveti ‘mikrogerilim bağlanma dayanımı testi’ iledeğerlendirilmiştir. Kopma tipleri 20X büyütmede ışık mikroskobu altında belirlenmiştir. Mikrosertlik testi için 5 mm çapta ve 2 mm derinlikte pleksi-glass kalıplar kullanılmıştır. Her materyal için 25 örnek olacak şekilde 75 örnek değerlendirilmiştir ve materyal mikrosertlikleri ‘Vicker’s testi’ ile incelenmiştir. Elde edilen veriler Kruskal Wallis testiyle değerlendirilmiştir. İstatistiksel anlamlılık düzeyi p≤0,05 olarak kabul edilmiştir.Bulgular: Cam karbomer (2,0 MPa) ve cam iyonomerin (1,7 MPa) dentine bağlanma değerleri arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılık olmadığı, kompomerin ise (9,4 MPa) istatistiksel olarak anlamlı derecede daha yüksek mikrogerilim bağlanma dayanımı gösterdiği belirlenmiştir (p<0,001). Cam karbomer siman, cam iyonomer siman ve kompomer restorasyon materyalleri arasında adeziv, koheziv ve karışık kopma tipleri oranları açısından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark görülmemiştir (p=0,409).Restoratif materyallerin mikrosertlik değerleri arasında ise istatistiksel anlamlı fark tespit edilmiştir (p<0,001). Mikrosertliği en yüksek dolgu materyali kompomer; mikrosertliği en düşük materyal ise cam karbomer olacak şekilde materyal sertlikleri kompomer>cam iyonomer>cam karbomer olarak belirlenmiştir. Sonuç: Cam karbomer siman dentine kompomerden daha düşük mikrogerilim bağlanma dayanımı göstermiştir. Ayrıca mikrosertlik değeri kompomerden ve cam iyonomer simandan daha düşük olarak tespit edilmiştir

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Çocuk diş hekimliği; Cam karbomer siman; Kompomer; Cam iyonomer siman.

Evaluation of physical and mechanical properties of glass carbomer cement under in vitro conditions

Aim: To evaluate the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) and microhardness of glass carbomer cement in comparison to conventional glass ionomer cement and compomer.Material and Methods: The bonding strength test involved 60, second deciduous molar teeth. The dentine bonding strength of the restorative materials was evaluated by a μTBS test. Failure modes were determined by light microscopy. Plexi-glass molds of 5 × 2 mm (diameter × depth) were used for Vickers’ microhardness analysis. Seventy-five samples were evaluated, considering twenty-five samples for each material. The data were statistically analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis test, at p≤0.05.Results:There was no significant difference between the μTBS of the glass carbomer (2.0 MPa) and glass ionomer (1.7 MPa) (p>0.05). However, the μTBSof the compomer (9.4 MPa) was higher than the glass carbomer and glass ionomer (p<0.001). No significant difference was found among the three materials, regarding adhesive, cohesive and mixed failure modes (p>0.05). The compomer presented the highest microhardness value, followed by the glass ionomer and finally, the glass carbomer (p<0.001). Conclusion:The glass carbomer cement showed a lower μTBSto the dentine than the compomer. Furthermore, the microhardness of the carbomer was lower than the compomer and glass ionomer.

Keywords:

Pediatric dentistry, Glass carbomer cement Glass ionomer cements.,

PDF

___

1. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD). Guideline on pediatric restorative dentistry. Pediatr Dent 2012; 37: 15-6.
2. Cefaly DFG, Valarelli FP, Seabra BGM, Mondelli RFL, Navarro MFL. Effect of time on the diametral tensile strength of resin-modified restorative glass ionomer cements and compomer. Braz Dent J2 001; 12: 201-4.
3. Dowling AH, Fleming JP. Are encapsulated anterior glass-ionomer restoratives better than their hand-mixed equivalents? J Dent 2009; 37: 133-40.
4. Mount GJ, Makinson O F. Glass-ionomer restorative cements: clinical implications of the setting reaction. Operative Dentistry 1982; 7: 134-41.
5. Botsali MS, Tokay U, Özmen B, Cortcu M, Koyuturk AE, Kahvecioğlu F. Effect of new innovative restorative carbomised glass cement on intrapulpal temperature rise: an ex-vivo study. Braz Oral Res 2016; 30: 1-7.
6. Gorseta K, Borzabadi-Farahani A, Moshaverinia A, Glavina D, Lynch E. Effect of different thermo-light polymerization on flexural strength of two glass ionomer cements and a glass carbomer cement. J Prosthet Dent 2017; 118: 102-7.
7. Arita K, Yamamoto A, Shinonaga Y et al.Hydroxyapatite particle characteristics in uence the enhancement of the mechanical and chemical properties of conventional restorative glass ionomer cement. Dental Materials Journal 2011; 30: 672-83.
8. Arita K, Okada K. Glass powder for glass ionomer cement. JP Patent No. 354509, 2001.
9. Zainuddin N, Karpukhina N, Law RV, Hill RG. Characterisation of a remineralising Glass Carbomer ionomer cement by MAS-NMR Spectroscopy. Dental Materials 2012; 28: 1051-58.
10. Gorseta K, Glavina D, Borzabadi-Farahani A et al. One-year clinical evaluation of a glass carbomer fissure sealant, a preliminary study. Eur J ProsthodontRest Dent 2014; 22: 67-71.
11. Lucas ME, Arita K, Nishino M. Toughness, bonding and fluoride-release properties of hydroxyapatite-added glass ionomer cement. Biomaterials 2003; 24: 3787–94.
12. Cehreli SB, Tirali RE, Yalcinkaya Z, Cehreli ZC. Microleakage of newly developed glass carbomer cement in primary teeth. European Journal of Dentistry 2013; 7: 15-21.
13. GCP Glass Carbomer, User Instructions.Available at: (https://gcp-dental.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Instructions-of-use-glass-fill-UK.pdf), Accessed: 24.10.2017 2011.
14. Menne-Happ U, Ilie N. Effect of gloss and heat on the mechanical behaviour of a glass carbomer cement. Journal of Dentistry 2013; 41: 223-30.
15. Gorseta K, Skrinjaric T, Glavina D.The effect of heating and ultrasound on the shear bond strength of glass ionomer cement. Coll Antropol 2012; 36:1307-12.
16. Hammouda IM, Al-Wakeel EE. Effect of water storage on fluoride release and mechanical properties of a polyacid-modified composite resin (compomer). J Biomed Res 2011; 25: 254-58.
17. Shivayogi MH, Divyata K, Chandrashekhar MB et al. Comparative assessment of conventional composites and coloured compomers in permanent molars of children with mixed dentition: A pilot study.Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 2017; 11: 69-72.
18. Shruthi AS, Nagaveni NB, Poornima P, Selvamani M, Madhushankari GS, Subba Reddy VV. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of conventional and modifications of glass ionomer cement in primary teeth: An in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2015; 33: 279-84.
19. Koenraads H, Kroona GVD, Frenckenb 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; 25: 551-56.
20. Mason PN, Ferrari M. In vivo evaluation of glass ionomer cement adhesion to dentin. Quintessence Int 1994; 25: 499-504.
21. Glavina D, Gorseta K, Negovetic-Vranic D, Skrinjaric I. Enamel shear-bond strength of Glass Carbomer after heating with three polimerization units. Int J Paediatr Dent 2009; 19: 41-45.
22Farahat F, Daneshkazemi AR, Hajiahmadi Z. The effect of bulk depth and irradiation time on the surfacehardness and degree of cure of bulk-fill composites. Journal of Dental Biomaterials 2016; 3: 284-91.
23. Yap AUJ, Pek YS, Kumar RA, Cheang P, Khor KA. Experimental studies on a new bioactive material: HAIonomer cements. Biomaterials 2002; 23: 955–62.
24. Olegari IC, Malagrana APVFP, Kim SSH et al. Mechanical properties of high-viscosity glass ionomer cement and nanoparticle glass carbomer. Hindawi Publishing Corporation Journal of Nanomaterials 2015; 2015: 4-9.
25. Sonmez IS, Ekici S, Oba AA. Evaluation of microhardness of different posterior composite resin materials. J Dent Fac Ankara Uni 2008;35: 61-66.
26. Chung KH, Greener EH. Correlation between degree of conversion, filler concentration and mechanical properties of posterior composite resins. J Oral Rehabil 1990; 17: 487-94.
27. Chen X, Cuijpers V, Fan M, Frencken JE. Marginal leakage of two newer glass-ionomer-based sealant materials assessed using micro-CT. Journal of Dentistry 2010; 38: 731-35.
28. De França Lopes CMC, Schubert EW, Martins AS, et al. Randomized clinical trial of art class II restorations using two glass ionomer cements: one-year follow-up. Pediatr Dent 2018; 40: 98-104.