Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Jan;6(1):79-86.

Evaluation of surface roughness and hardness of different glass ionomer cements

Oya Bala  1 , Hacer Deniz Arisu, Ihsan Yikilgan, Seda Arslan, Abdulkadir Gullu
Affiliations

Evaluation of surface roughness and hardness of different glass ionomer cements

Oya Bala et al. Eur J Dent. 2012 Jan.

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 spcecimens 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.

Keywords: Glass ionomer cement; hardness; surface roughness.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Means of surface roughness (Ra μm) for tested materials.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
SEM photographs of tested GICs at x2000 after polishing.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. McCabe JF. Resin-modified glass-ionomers. Biomater. 1998;19:521–527. - PubMed
    1. Modena KC, Casas-Apayco LC, Atta MT, Costa CA, Hebling J, Sipert CR, Navarro MF, Santos CF. Cytotoxicity and bio-compatibility of direct and indirect pulp capping materials. J Appl Oral Sci. 2009;17:544–554. - PMC - PubMed
    1. 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. - PubMed
    1. 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. - PubMed
    1. 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. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources