Email Alert | RSS

Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences) ›› 2019, Vol. 51 ›› Issue (5): 964-967. doi: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2019.05.029

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Influence of different mixing pads on physical and mechanical properties of glass ionomer cement

Jing-ying HU1,Li LI1,Qian-mei ZHOU1,Rui-yu DING2,△(),Ran SHANG2,Wei BAI3   

  1. 1. Department of General Dentistry Ⅱ, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Beijing 100081, China
    2. Department of Geriatric Dentistry, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Beijing 100081, China
    3. Department of Dental Materials, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology &National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Beijing 100081, China
  • Received:2019-02-28 Online:2019-10-18 Published:2019-10-23
  • Contact: Rui-yu DING E-mail:drydentist@163.com
  • Supported by:
    Supported by Youth Research Fund of Peaking University Hospital of Stomatology(PKUSS20160203)

RICH HTML

   

PDF (PC)

Abstract:

Objective: To analyze the influence of different mixing pads on the physical and mechanical properties of glass ionomer cement.Methods: Three different glass ionomer base cements were mixed with a plastic spatula on three different mixing pads including paper pad, glass pad and silicon pad whose HS were 40, 60 and 80. The GIC was packed into stainless steel molds to get specimens. Surface roughness、surface hardness and compressive strength were evaluated. Results: As for compressive strength, CF: There was the highest mean compressive strength that was significantly higher than those of silicon pad 60 group, paper 60 group and paper 20 group in silicon pad 40 group,the differences P values were 0.002 0.027, and 0.036, statistically significant difference between the above groups (P<0.05). IX:there was the highest mean compressive strength that was significantly higher than those of silicon pad 60 group in paper pad 20 group,the differences P value was 0.008, statistically significant (P<0.05). FX:there was the highest mean compressive strength that was no significantly higher than those of paper pad 20 group in silicon pad 40 group, but was significantly higher than those of the other groups. As for surface hardness, CF: there was the highest mean surface hardness that was significantly higher than those of silicon pad 60 and 80 group, paper 60 group in silicon pad 40 group, the differences P value was 0.021, 0.001, 0.032, 0.008 and 0.016, statistically significant difference between the above groups (P<0.05). IX and FX: there was no statistical significance between any two groups in surface hardness. As for surface roughness, CF: there was no statistical significance between any two groups in surface roughness. IX: there was the lowest mean surface roughness that was significantly lower than those of paper pad 40 and 60 group in glass pad group, the differences P values were 0.003 and 0.027, statistically significant difference between the above groups (P<0.05). FX: there was the lowest mean surface roughness that was significantly lower than those of paper pad 60 group in glass pad group, the differences P value was 0.018, showing a statistical difference (P<0.05). Conclusion:Mixing glass ionomer cement on silicon pad 40 results in higher compressive strength and lower surface roughness, worthy of clinical popularization.

Key words: Glass ionomer cement, Mixing board, Surface roughness, Surface micro-hardness, Compressive strength

CLC Number: 

  • R783.1

Table 1

Compressive strength of different mixing boards"

Group Sample size Type of cement/MPa, x?±s
CF IX FX Total
Paper 20 15 169.7±20.5 233.6±29.8 186.0±17.0 196.4±35.3
Paper 40 15 187.0±9.5 199.6±24.8 139.8±39.0 175.9±36.7
Paper 60 15 160.9±27.7 169.1±48.6 136.8±23.4 155.6±35.4
Silica gel 40 15 214.3±18.2 208.0±18.5 215.1±23.1 212.5±18.9
Silica gel 60 15 155.5±4.9 151.5±51.7 138.0±26.1 148.3±32.0
Silica gel 80 15 188.0±15.2 174.6±26.3 87.4±23.9 150.0±50.6
Glass plate 15 180.8±24.1 205.1±49.2 196.9±44.9 194.3±39.3

Table 2

Surface micro- hardness of different mixing boards"

Group Sample Size Type of cement/HV, x?±s
CF IX FX Total
Paper 20 15 67.1±8.2 6.8±3.4 61.4±9.8 63.1±8.0
Paper 40 15 53.1±9.7 76.3±7.2 59.6±16.2 63.0±15.2
Paper 60 15 51.4±3.2 67.2±6.2 68.4±3.2 62.3±8.9
Silica gel 40 15 72.9±13.3 64.2±7.4 64.6±4.8 67.2±10.0
Silica gel 60 15 51.4±3.2 70.2±18.0 48.3±12.2 56.6±16.0
Silica gel 80 15 43.9±7.2 56.9±9.2 51.2±8.2 50.7±9.8
Glass plate 15 52.8±10.2 61.8±7.2 68.3±3.1 61.0±9.8

Table 3

Surface roughness of different mixers"

Group Sample Size Type of cement/μm, x?±s
CF IX FX Total
Paper 20 15 2.1±0.8 1.2±0.5 0.5±0.1 1.3±0.9
Paper 40 15 2.5±1.0 2.1±0.4 1.2±0.6 1.9±0.9
Paper 60 15 1.4±0.5 2.1±0.9 2.6±0.4 2.0±0.8
Silica gel 40 15 1.3±0.7 1.4±0.6 0.7±0.5 1.1±0.7
Silica gel 60 15 2.0±0.7 0.9±0.2 0.8±0.1 1.2±0.7
Silica gel 80 15 1.6±0.7 1.3±0.6 0.8±0.4 1.3±0.7
Glass plate 15 1.5±0.7 0.52±0.2 0.3±0.1 0.8±0.6
[1] Nicholson JW . Adhesive dental materials and their durability[J]. INT J Adhes, 2000,20(1):11-16.
[2] Yip HK, Tay FR, Ngo HC , et al. Bonding of contemporary ionomer Hoff-man’s cements to dentin[J]. J Dent Mart, 2001,17(5):456-470.
[3] 冯瑶, 冯思聪, 王建平 . 玻璃离子水门汀加入改良纳米羟基磷灰石后的性能[J]. 中国组织工程研究杂志, 2013,17(42):7382-7388.
[4] McCarthy MF, Hondrum S . Mechanical and bond strength properties of light-cured and chemically cured glass ionomer cements[J]. J Orthod Dentofac, 1994,105(2):135-141.
[5] Silva RC, Zuanon ACC, Esberard HIL . In vitro mierohardness of assionomer cements[J]. I Mater Sei Mater Med, 2007,1(1):139-142.
[6] Sulaiman T, Abdulmajeed A, Altitinchi A , et al. Effect of resin-modified glass ionomer cement dispensing/mixing methods on mechanical properties[J]. J Oper Dent, 2018,43(4):158-165.
[7] Craig R, Powers J. Sakaguchi R . Craig's restorative dental materials[M]. 13th ed. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby Elsevierp, 2012: 84-182.
[8] Ellakuria J, Triana R, Mnguez N , et al. Effect of one-year water storage on the surface microhardness of resin-modified versus conventional glass-ionomer cements[J]. Dent Mater, 2003,19(2):86-90.
[9] Prentice LH, Tyas MJ, Burrow MF . The effect of particle size distribution on an experimental glass-ionomer cement[J]. Dent Mater, 2005,21(6):505-510.
[10] Pedrini DL, Candido MS, Rodrigues AL . Analysis of surface roughness of glass-ionomer cements and compomer[J]. Oral Rehabil, 2003,30(7):714-719.
[11] Bagheri RL, Burrow MF, Tyas MJ . Surface characteristics of aesthetic restorative materials-an SEM study[J]. Oral Rehabil, 2007,34(1):68-76.
[1] Qian-mei ZHOU,Rui-yu DING,Li LI,Wei BAI,Jing-ying HU. Influence of paper mixing pads thickness on the compressive strength of glass ionomer cement [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2023, 55(1): 78-81.
[2] Hao LUO,Fu-cong TIAN,Xiao-yan WANG. Surface roughness, gloss and sequential polishing times of various chairside computer aided design/manufacturing restorative materials [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2022, 54(3): 565-571.
[3] ZHANG Hao-yu, JIANG Ting, CHENG Ming-xuan, ZHANG Yu-wei. Wear intensity and surface roughness of microhybrid composite and ceramic occlusal veneers on premolars after the thermocycling and cyclic mechanical loading tests [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2018, 50(1): 73-77.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!
Copyright © Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), All Rights Reserved.
Powered by Beijing Magtech Co. Ltd