![]() This treatment is known as "atraumatic restorative treatment": it consists on caries removal with exclusive use of manual instruments such as excavators. 5, 7, 8ĭue to the fact that glass ionomer cements can physically and chemically adhere to the tooth structure by means of ionic exchange, this material has been used by directly placing it as a restoration to control certain carious processes. Microleakage can cause many undesirable effects such as hypersensitivity, marginal discoloration, recurrent caries and pulp lesions. 3, 4, 5, 6 This microleakage can occur due to poor adaptation of the restoration to the cavity, as a result of solubility of cement, coatings and bases, or due to significant differences in the expansion coefficient of the restoration material and the tooth. In different in vitro studies, microleakage is defined as the passage of bacteria, fluids, chemical substances ions and molecules between the tooth and the restoration. Due to the aforementioned, indications are extremely specific. This is due to their low resistance, fragility and the ease they exhibit to absorb and lose water, thus decreasing their properties. Nevertheless, these materials suffer limitations when applied. They possess unique properties such as suitable adhesion to enamel and dentin, satisfactory esthetics and long-term fluoride release. 1, 2 These differences in composition result in characteristics' variations. In the last 20 years, development of glass ionomer has led to several variables in powder and polycarbonic acid components. The first preparation of the aforementioned material was introduced in the market in 1972, with the name of ASPA (aluminum silicate polyacrylic). In 1969, Wilson et al successfully developed a new modified cement composed of fine-grained glass silicate ionomer and polyacrylic acid. ![]() This evolution targeted the improvement of the materials' physical characteristics to thus offer better quality in performed treatments. In the last five years, restorative materials have rapidly evolved. Palabras clave Ionómero de vidrio microfiltración acondicionador ácido poliacrílico Por lo que se concluye, con que no existen diferencias significativas en colocar acondicionador en este tipo de cavidades y con este material en particular. Se calificaron las muestras y se obtuvo que el promedio de microfiltración para el grupo A fue de 2.06% y para el grupo B fue de 1.84%, sin representar diferencias significativas. Cada sección fue examinada minuciosamente al microscopio. Cada molar fue seccionado con disco de carburo, con cortes longitudinales en el centro de la preparación. Las muestras se sometieron a un proceso de termociclado y fueron sumergidas en azul de metileno al 1%, durante 30 minutos. Al grupo A se le colocó un acondicionador de ácido poliacrílico como indica el fabricante, antes del ionómero, y al grupo B se le colocó el ionómero directamente. Se formaron dos grupos de 20 muestras de forma aleatoria, a los cuales se les realizó profilaxis y cavidades de clase V sobre la cara vestibular. Para lograr éste, se seleccionaron 40 terceros molares extraídos, limpios e hidratados. Keywords: Glass ionomer microleakage conditioner polyacrylic acidĮl objetivo de este estudio fue valorar la microfiltración del ionómero de vidrio mejorado ( Ketac Molar Easymix ®) con o sin el uso de acondicionador. It can therefore be concluded that application of conditioner in this type of cavities and with this particular material does not cause statistically significant differences. Samples were rated and the following was observed: microleakage, for group A was 2.06% and for group B 1.84% which did not represent statistically significant differences. Each section was carefully examined under the microscope. All molars were sectioned with carbide burr executing longitudinal cuts at the preparation's center. ![]() All samples were subjected to a thermo-cycling process and then were immersed in a 1% methylene blue solution for 30 minutes. Before ionomer application, and according to manufacturer's instructions, group A received a polyacrylic acid conditioner, whereas group B received direct ionomer application. Samples were subjected to prophylaxis and class V cavities were created on the vestibular (labial) surface of the teeth. Two 20 randomly selected sample groups were established. Molars had previously been extracted, cleansed and hydrated. In order to conduct this study, 40 third molars were used. The aim of the present study was to assess microleakage experienced by improved glass ionomer ( Ketac Molar Easymix ®) with and without use of conditioner.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |