Citation Information :
Mulder R, Noordien N, Rossouw S, van Zyl L. In Vitro Analysis of Techniques that Alter the Surface Hardness of a Glass Ionomer Restorative Material. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019; 20 (12):1362-1366.
Aim: The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the effect of different manipulation techniques on the surface hardness of ChemFil Rock glass ionomer.
Materials and methods: The changes in Vickers surface hardness (VH) of ChemFil Rock were evaluated after the application of five manipulation techniques and compared with one control group (n = 60). The manipulation techniques included: finger pressure set, electronic piezo producing a high frequency set, air piezo producing a low frequency set, heat-set achieved with a curing light and the last technique was a combination of electronic piezo followed by heat-set. Standard set was the control.
Results: The average surface hardness for the standard set was 49.5 VH. No statistical differences were demonstrated when the means were compared for finger pressure set (49.2 VH) or the air piezo set (48.49 VH) with standard set. The electronic piezo (54.21 VH) and the heat-set (57.5 VH) had an increased mean surface hardness when compared to other techniques. Heat-set had the highest surface hardness demonstrating a significant statistical difference when compared with standard set, finger pressure set, air piezo set as well as the combination of electronic piezo (p < 0.05).
Conclusion: The surface hardness of the glass ionomer cement (GIC) material assessed in this study can be predictably improved by applying the heat-set technique. A command set can be achieved with the electronic piezo or the air piezo, however, the surface hardness will only increase with the use of the electronic piezo.
Clinical significance: The clinical advantage of using the air piezo as well as the electronic piezo technique would lie in preventing moisture contamination and dissolution of the GIC due to the command set effect of the ultrasonic vibrations within 15 seconds. The heat technique with the LED curing light will reduce the setting time to 90 seconds.
Black S, Amoore J. Measurement of forces applied during the clinical cementation of dental crowns. Physiol Meas 1993;14(3):387–392. DOI: 10.1088/0967-3334/14/3/018.
9917-1:2007 I. ISO 9917-1:2007—Dentistry—Water-based cements—Part 1: Powder/liquid acid-base cements [Internet]. Iso.org. 2018 [cited 19 May 2018]. Available from: https://www.iso.org/standard/45818.html.
Khoroushi M, Karvandi TM, Sadeghi R. Effect of pre-warming and/or delayed light activation on resin-modified glass ionomer bond strength to tooth structures. Oper Dent 2012;37(1):54–62. DOI: 10.2341/11-137-L.
Esser M, Tinschert J, Marx R. Material characteristics of the hard tissues of bovine vs human teeth. Dtsch Zahnaerztl Z 1998;53(713):717.
Pelka M, Ebert J, Schneider H, et al. Comparison of two- and three-body wear of glass-ionomers and composites. Eur J Oral Sci 1996;104(2):132–137. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.1996.tb00057.x.
Xie D, Brantley W, Culbertson B, et al. Mechanical properties and microstructures of glass-ionomer cements. Dent Mater 2000;16(2):129–138. DOI: 10.1016/S0109-5641(99)00093-7.
Sidhu S., Nicholson J. A review of glass-ionomer cements for clinical dentistry. J Funct Biomater 2016;7(3):16. DOI: 10.3390/jfb7030016.
Hübel S, Mejàre I. Conventional vs resin-modified glass-ionomer cement for Class II restorations in primary molars. A 3-year clinical study. Int J Paediatr Dent 2003;13(1):2–8. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-263X.2003.00416.x.
Kleverlaan C, van Duinen R, Feilzer A. Mechanical properties of glass ionomer cements affected by curing methods. Dent Mater 2004;20(1):45–50. DOI: 10.1016/S0109-5641(03)00067-8.
Hickel R, Manhart J, Garcia-Godoy F. Clinical results and new developments of direct posterior restorations. Am J Dent 2000;13: 41–54.
Hickel R, Kaaden C, Paschos E, et al. Longevity of occlusally-stressed restorations in posterior primary teeth. Am J Dent 2005;18(3):198–211.
Baloch F, Mirza A, Baloch D. An in vitro study to compare the microhardness of glass ionomer cement set conventionally vs set under ultrasonic waves. Int J Health Sci (Qassim) 2010;4(2):149–155.
Menne-Happ U, Ilie N. Effect of heat application on the mechanical behaviour of glass ionomer cements. Clin Oral Invest 2013;18(2): 643–650. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-013-1005-4.
O'Brien T, Shoja-Assadi F, Lea S, et al. Extrinsic energy sources affect hardness through depth during set of a glass-ionomer cement. J Dent 2010;38(6):490–495. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2010.03.004.
Qvist V, Laurberg L, Poulsen A, et al. Eight year study on conventional glass ionomer and amalgam restorations in primary teeth. Acta Odont Scand 2004;62(1):37–45. DOI: 10.1080/00016350310008689.
Towler M. A preliminary comparison of the mechanical properties of chemically cured and ultrasonically cured glass ionomer cements, using nano-indentation techniques. Biomater 2001;22(11):1401–1406. DOI: 10.1016/S0142-9612(00)00297-0.
Twomey E, Towler M, Crowley C, et al. Investigation into the ultrasonic setting of glass ionomer cements part II setting times and compressive strengths. J Mater Sci 2004;39(14):4631–4632. DOI: 10.1023/B:JMSC.0000034158.69184.84.
Algera T, Kleverlaan C, de Gee A, et al. 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 Ortho 2005;27(5):472–476. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cji041.
Barata T, Bresciani E, Adachi A, et al. Influence of ultrasonic setting on compressive and diametral tensile strengths of glass ionomer cements. Mater Res 2008;11(1):57–61. DOI: 10.1590/S1516-14392008000100011.
Gorseta K, Glavina D, Skrinjaric I. Influence of ultrasonic excitation and heat application on the microleakage of glass ionomer cements. Aust Dent J 2012;57(4):453–457. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2012.01724.x.
Fagundesa T, Barataa J, Bresciania T, et al. Influence of ultrasonic setting on tensile bond strength of glass-ionomer cements to dentin. J Adhes Dent 2006;8(6):401–407.
Coldebella C, Santos-Pinto L, Zuanon A. Effect of ultrasonic excitation on the porosity of glass ionomer cement: a scanning electron microscope evaluation. Microsc Res 2010;74(1):54–57. DOI: 10.1002/jemt.20873.
Hattab F, Amin W. Fluoride release from glass ionomer restorative materials and the effects of surface coating. Biomater 2001;22(12):1449–1458. DOI: 10.1016/S0142-9612(00)00253-2.
Ellakuria J, Triana R, Minguez N, et al. Effect of one-year water storage on the surface microhardness of resin-modified vs conventional glass-ionomer cements. Dent Mater 2003;19(4):286–290. DOI: 10.1016/S0109-5641(02)00042-8.
Yap AU, Pek YS, Cheang P. Physico-mechanical properties of a fast-set highly viscous GIC restorative. J Oral Rehab 2003;30(1):1–8. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.01006.x.
Dentsply Sirona. Scientific Compendium of ChemFil Rock. [Internet]. 2011 [cited 19 May 2019]. Available from: https://www.dentsplysirona.com/content/dam/dentsply/pim/manufacturer/Restorative/Direct_Restoration/Glass_Ionomers/Classic_Glass_Ionomers/ChemFil_Rock/ChemFil-Rock-nhg3c1d-scientific- en-1402.
Zoergiebel J, Ilie N. An in vitro study on the maturation of conventional glass ionomer cements and their interface to dentin. Acta Biomater 2013;9(12):9529–9537. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2013. 08.010.
Kwon S, Park Y, Jun S, et al. Thermal irritation of teeth during dental treatment procedures. Restor Dent Endod 2013;38(3):105–112. DOI: 10.5395/rde.2013.38.3.105.
Zortuk M, Bolpaca P, Kilic K, et al. Effects of finger pressure applied by dentists during cementation of all-ceramic crowns. Eur J Dent 2010;4(4):383–388. DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1697857.