Comparative Evaluation of Compressive Strength and Diametral Tensile Strength of Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement and a Glass Hybrid Glass Ionomer Cement
Citation Information :
Shah SB, Patil S, Shah P, Patel A, Chaudhary S. Comparative Evaluation of Compressive Strength and Diametral Tensile Strength of Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement and a Glass Hybrid Glass Ionomer Cement. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2022; 15 (4):398-401.
Aim: The aim of this study is to compare and evaluate compressive strength (CS) and diametral tensile strength (DTS) of a conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) and a glass hybrid GIC. Materials and methods: Five samples each were prepared of GC Fuji IX and EQUIA Forte cements for CS testing and five samples of each material for tensile strength testing. Specimens were subjected to a universal testing machine. Comparison of CS and DTS among two study groups was made using an independent t-test for each. Level of significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. Results: Both test values were on the higher side for EQUIA Forte cement as compared to conventional GIC (p ≥ 0.05). However, the differences in values were not statistically significant. Conclusion: EQUIA Forte can serve as an alternative to conventional GIC in stress-bearing primary teeth areas. Considering several factors like cost-effectiveness, surface to be restored, moisture contamination, and time considerations, the material of choice can be tailored to one's needs. Clinical significance: EQUIA Forte can serve as a viable alternative to conventional GIC because of its improved qualities.
Barretto E, Aswin S, Shetty S, et al. Comparative evaluation of compressive strength of Ketac Molar, Fuji IX and Equia Forte. Indian J Public Health Res Dev 2018;9(5):228. DOI: 10.5958/0976-5506.2018.00444.8
Chun KJ, Lee JY. Comparative study of mechanical properties of dental restorative materials and dental hard tissues in compressive loads. J Dent Biomech 2014;5:1758736014555246. DOI: 10.1177/1758736014555246
Kutuk ZB, Ozturk C, Cakir FY, et al. Mechanical performance of a newly developed glass hybrid restorative in the restoration of large MO Class 2 cavities. Niger J Clin Pract 2019;22(6):833–841. DOI: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_628_18
Busanello L, Telles M, Júnior WG, et al. Compressive strength of glass ionomer cements used for atraumatic restorative treatment. Rev odontociênc 2009;24(3):295–298.
Wilson AD, Kent BE, Mesley RJ, et al. Formation of dental silicate cement. Nature 1970;225:272–273. DOI: 10.1038/225272a0
Wilson AD, Kent BE. A new translucent cement for dentistry. The glass ionomer cement. Br Dent J 1972;132(4):133–135. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4802810
Bresciani E, Barata TDJE, Fagundes TC, et al. Compressive and diametral tensile strength of glass ionomer cements. J Appl Oral Sci 2004;12(4):344–348. DOI: 10.1590/S1678-77572004000400017
Rekha CV, Varma B, Jayanthi. Comparative evaluation of tensile bond strength and microleakage of conventional glass ionomer cement, resin modified glass ionomer cement and compomer: an in vitro study. Contemp Clin Dent 2012;3(3):282–287. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.103619
Xie D, Brantley WA, Culbertson BM, 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
Darvell BW. Mechanical testing. In: Materials Science for Dentistry. 6th ed. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong; 2000. p. 1–18.
Poornima P, Koley P, Kenchappa M, et al. Comparative evaluation of compressive strength and surface microhardness of EQUIA Forte, resin-modified glass-ionomer cement with conventional glass-ionomer cement. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2019;37(3):265–270. DOI: 10.4103/JISPPD.JISPPD_342_18
Garcia-Contreras R, Scougall-Vilchis RJ, Contreras-Bulnes R, et al. Mechanical, antibacterial and bond strength properties of nano-titanium-enriched glass ionomer cement. J Appl Oral Sci 2015;23(3):321–328. DOI: 10.1590/1678-775720140496
Introducing the restorative innovation of glass hybrid technology: a comprehensive guide to Equia Forte.
Wang L, D'Alpino PH, Lopes LG, et al. Mechanical properties of dental restorative materials: relative contribution of laboratory tests. J Appl Oral Sci 2003;11(3):162–167. DOI: 10.1590/s1678-77572003000300002
Craig RG. Mechanical properties. In: Restorative Dental Materials. 10th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 1997. p. 56–103.
Yap AUJ, Cheang PHN, Chay PL. Mechanical properties of two restorative reinforced glass-ionomer cements. J Oral Rehabil 2002;29(7):682–688. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00908.x
Mallmann A, Ataíde JCO, Amoedo R, et al. Compressive strength of glass ionomer cements using different specimen dimensions. Braz Oral Res 2007;21(3):204–208. DOI: 10.1590/s1806-83242007000300003
Phillip's Science of Dental Materials, 12th ed., Chapter 4. Mechanical Properties of Dental Materials. p. 49.
Jayanthi N, Vinod V. Comparative evaluation of compressive strength and flexural strength of conventional core materials with nanohybrid composite resin core material an in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2013;13(3):281–289. DOI: 10.1007/s13191-012-0236-4
British Standards Institution. British Standards Specification for Dental Glass Ionomer Cement BS 6039; 1981. 4.
Yap AUJ, Pek YS, Cheang P. Physico-mechanical properties of a fast-set highly viscous GIC restorative. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30(1):1–8. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.01006.x
Moshaverinia M, Navas A, Jahedmanesh N, et al. Comparative evaluation of the physical properties of a reinforced glass ionomer dental restorative material. J Prosthet Dent 2019;122(2):154–159. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.03.012
