Porosity and pore size distribution in high-viscosity and conventional glass ionomer cements: a micro-computed tomography study
2
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Objectives: This study aimed to compare and evaluate the porosity and pore size distribution of high-viscosity glass ionomer cements (HVGICs) and conventional glass ionomer cements (GICs) using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT). Materials and Methods: Forty cylindrical specimens (n = 10) were produced in standardized molds using HVGICs and conventional GICs (Ketac Molar Easymix, Vitro Molar, MaxxionR, and Riva Self-Cure). The specimens were prepared according to ISO 9917-1 standards, scanned in a high-energy micro-CT device, and reconstructed using specific parameters. After reconstruction, segmentation procedures, and image analysis, total porosity and pore size distribution were obtained for specimens in each group. After checking the normality of the data distribution, the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by the Student-Newman-Keuls test was used to detect differences in porosity among the experimental groups with a 5% significance level. Results: Ketac Molar Easymix showed statistically significantly lower total porosity (0.15%) than MaxxionR (0.62%), Riva (0.42%), and Vitro Molar (0.57%). The pore size in all experimental cements was within the small-size range (< 0.01 mm3), but Vitro Molar showed statistically significantly more pores/defects with a larger size (> 0.01 mm3). Conclusions: Major differences in porosity and pore size were identified among the evaluated GICs. Among these, the Ketac Molar Easymix HVGIC showed the lowest porosity and void size.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to compare and evaluate the porosity and pore size distribution of high-viscosity glass ionomer cements (HVGICs) and conventional glass ionomer cements (GICs) using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT). Materials and Methods: Forty cylindrical specimens (n = 10) were produced in standardized molds using HVGICs and conventional GICs (Ketac Molar Easymix, Vitro Molar, MaxxionR, and Riva Self-Cure). The specimens were prepared according to ISO 9917-1 standards, scanned in a high-energy micro-CT device, and reconstructed using specific parameters. After reconstruction, segmentation procedures, and image analysis, total porosity and pore size distribution were obtained for specimens in each group. After checking the normality of the data distribution, the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by the Student-Newman-Keuls test was used to detect differences in porosity among the experimental groups with a 5% significance level. Results: Ketac Molar Easymix showed statistically significantly lower total porosity (0.15%) than MaxxionR (0.62%), Riva (0.42%), and Vitro Molar (0.57%). The pore size in all experimental cements was within the small-size range (< 0.01 mm3), but Vitro Molar showed statistically significantly more pores/defects with a larger size (> 0.01 mm3). Conclusions: Major differences in porosity and pore size were identified among the evaluated GICs. Among these, the Ketac Molar Easymix HVGIC showed the lowest porosity and void size.
참고문헌 (33)
- Sidhu SK, "A review of glass-ionomer cements for clinical dentistry", J Funct Biomater, 7, pp.16~ (2016)
- Coutinho E, "Bonding effectiveness and interfacial characterization of a nano-filled resin-modified glass-ionomer", Dent Mater, 25, pp.1347~1357 (2009)
- Berg JH, "Glass ionomer restorative cement systems: an update", Pediatr Dent, 37, pp.116~124 (2015)
- Hesse D, "Survival rate of Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) restorations using a glass ionomer bilayer technique with a nanofilled coating: a Bi-center randomized clinical trial", Pediatr Dent, 38, pp.18~24 (2016)
- Burke FJT, "The ultimate guide to restoration longevity in England and Wales. Part 3: glass ionomer restorations - time to next intervention and to extraction of the restored tooth", Br Dent J, 224, pp.865~874 (2018)
- Frankenberger R, "Viscous glass-ionomer cements: a new alternative to amalgam in the primary dentition?", Quintessence Int, 28, pp.667~676 (1997)
- Schwendicke F, "Directly placed restorative materials: Review and network meta-analysis", J Dent Res, 95, pp.613~622 (2016)
- van Dijken JW, "Fracture frequency and longevity of fractured resin composite, polyacid-modified resin composite, and resin-modified glass ionomer cement class IV restorations: an up to 14 years of follow-up", Clin Oral Investig, 14, pp.217~222 (2010)
- Leal S, "Atraumatic restorative treatment: restorative component", Monogr Oral Sci, 27, pp.92~102 (2018)
- Hilgert LA, "Is high-viscosity glass-ionomer-cement a successor to amalgam for treating primary molars?", Dent Mater, 30, pp.1172~1178 (2014)
- de Amorim RG, "Survival percentages of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) restorations and sealants in posterior teeth: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis", Clin Oral Investig, 22, pp.2703~2725 (2018)
- Nomoto R, "Effect of mixing methods on the compressive strength of glass ionomer cements", J Dent, 29, pp.205~210 (2001)
- Nimmo JR, "Reference module in earth systems and environmental sciences" (2013), Elsevier
- Mitchell CA, "Comparison of the porosity of hand-mixed and capsulated glass-ionomer luting cements", Biomaterials, 18, pp.1127~1131 (1997)
- Nicholson JW, "Maturation processes in glass-ionomer dental cements", Acta Biomater Odontol Scand, 4, pp.63~71 (2018)
- Geirsson J, "Porosity evaluation and pore size distribution of a novel directly placed ceramic restorative material", Dent Mater, 20, pp.987~995 (2004)
- Coldebella CR, "Effect of ultrasonic excitation on the porosity of glass ionomer cement: a scanning electron microscope evaluation", Microsc Res Tech, 74, pp.54~57 (2011)
- Covey DA, "Porosity in manually and machine mixed resin-modified glass ionomer cements", Oper Dent, 26, pp.617~623 (2001)
- Malkoç MA, "Micro-CT detection and characterization of porosity in luting cements", J Prosthodont, 24, pp.553~561 (2015)
- Nomoto R, "Effect of mixing method on the porosity of encapsulated glass ionomer cement", Dent Mater, 20, pp.972~978 (2004)
- De Souza ET, "Tridimensional quantitative porosity characterization of three set calcium silicate-based repair cements for endodontic use", Microsc Res Tech, 76, pp.1093~1098 (2013)
- Faul F, "G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences", Behav Res Methods, 39, pp.175~191 (2007)
- Calvo AF, "Evaluation of the relationship between the cost and properties of glass ionomer cements indicated for atraumatic restorative treatment", Braz Oral Res, 30, pp.S1806~ (2016)
- Schmid B, "A high-level 3D visualization API for Java and Image", J. BMC Bioinformatics, 11, pp.274~ (2010)
- Anna Luisa de Brito P, "One year survival rate of Ketac Molar versus Vitro Molar for occlusoproximal ART restorations: a RCT", Braz Oral Res, 31, pp.e88~ (2017)
- Bonifácio CC, "The effect of GIC-brand on the survival rate of proximal-ART restorations", Int J Paediatr Dent, 23, pp.251~258 (2013)
- Benetti AR, "How mobile are protons in the structure of dental glass ionomer cements?", Sci Rep, 5, pp.8972~ (2015)
- Peez R, "The physical-mechanical performance of the new Ketac Molar Easymix compared to commercially available glass ionomer restoratives", J Dent, 34, pp.582~587 (2006)
- Raggio DP, "Effect of insertion method on Knoop hardness of high viscous glass ionomer cements", Braz Dent J, 21, pp.439~445 (2010)
- Neves AB, "Mineral density changes in bovine carious dentin after treatment with bioactive dental cements: a comparative micro-CT study", Clin Oral Investig, 23, pp.1865~1870 (2019)
- Bonifácio CC, "Physical-mechanical properties of glass ionomer cements indicated for atraumatic restorative treatment", Aust Dent J, 54, pp.233~237 (2009)
- Nicholson J, "Materials for the direct restoration of teeth", pp.107~136 (2016), Elsevier
- Santa G, "Capillary porosity depercolation in cement-based materials: Measurement techniques and factors which influence their interpretation", Cement Concr Res, 41, pp.854~864 (2011)