Journal Article

Resin‐modified glass ionomer, modified composite or conventional glass ionomer for band cementation?—an <i>in vitro</i> evaluation

D. T. Millett, A. Cummings, S. Letters, E. Roger and J. Love

in The European Journal of Orthodontics

Published on behalf of European Orthodontics Society

Volume 25, issue 6, pages 609-614
Published in print December 2003 | ISSN: 0141-5387
Published online December 2003 | e-ISSN: 1460-2210 | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejo/25.6.609
Resin‐modified glass ionomer, modified composite or conventional glass ionomer for band cementation?—an in vitro evaluation

More Like This

Show all results sharing this subject:

  • Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics

GO

Show Summary Details

Preview

The aims of this study were to compare the mean shear‐peel bond strength and predominant site of bond failure of micro‐etched orthodontic bands cemented with resin‐modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC; Fuji Ortho LC or 3M Multi‐Cure), a modified composite or a conventional GIC. The survival time of bands was also assessed following simulated mechanical stress in a ball mill.

One hundred and twenty molar bands were cemented to extracted human third molars. Eighty bands (20 cemented with each cement) were used to assess the debonding force and 40 bands (10 cemented with each cement) were used to determine survival time. The specimens were prepared in accordance with the manufacturers' instructions for each cement. After storage in a humidor at 37°C for 24 hours, the shear debonding force was assessed for each specimen using a Nene M3000 testing machine with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/minute. The predominant site of band failure was recorded visually for all specimens as either at the band/cement or cement/enamel interface. Survival time was assessed following application of mechanical stress in a ball mill.

There was no significant difference in mean shear‐peel bond strength between the cement groups (P = 0.816). The proportion of specimens failing at each interface differed significantly between cement groups (P < 0.001). The predominant site of bond failure for bands cemented with the RMGIC (Fuji Ortho LC) or the modified composite was at the enamel/cement interface, whereas bands cemented with 3M Multi‐Cure failed predominantly at the cement/band interface. Conventional GIC specimens failed mostly at the enamel/cement interface. The mean survival time of bands cemented with either of the RMGICs or with the modified composite was significantly longer than for those cemented with the conventional GIC. The findings indicate that although there appears to be equivalence in the mean shear‐peel bond strength of the band cements assessed, the fatigue properties of the conventional GIC when subjected to simulated mechanical stress seem inferior to those of the other cements for band cementation.

Journal Article.  0 words. 

Subjects: Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics

Full text: subscription required

How to subscribe Recommend to my Librarian

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.