COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AND SURFACE ROUGHNESS OF CERAMIC REINFORCED GLASS IONOMER SUBJECTED TO CHEMICAL CHALLENGE | ||||
| Egyptian Dental Journal | ||||
| Article 27, Volume 63, Issue 3 - July (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics), July 2017, Page 2709-2719 PDF (3.04 MB) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/edj.2017.76235 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
| Randa M. Hafez1; Maha E. Elkorashy2; Mayada S. Sultan3 | ||||
| 1Professor, Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Cairo University | ||||
| 2Lecturer, Operative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Fayoum University | ||||
| 3Lecturer, Operative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Assiut University | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Objective: This research was conducted to investigate the effect of chemical challenge on the compressive strength (CS) and surface roughness (Ra) of a ceramic reinforced glass ionomer in comparison to a nanofilled resin composite. Methods: A total of 60 disc specimens (6mm height x 4mm diameter) were prepared for the compressive strength testing and another 60 disc specimens (5mm diameter x 2mm thickness) for the surface roughness testing. Specimens were divided into 2 groups (n=30) according to the material used; ceramic reinforced glass ionomer (Amalgomer CR, Advanced Health Care Ltd, Tonbridge, Kent, UK) and nanofilled resin composite (FiltekTM Z350 XT, 3M ESPE, St.Paul, MN,USA). Each group was divided into 3 subgroups (n=10) according to the storage media; distilled water (control), 0.02N citric acid and 50% ethanol. Specimens were stored for 7 days at 37ºC. After storage period, they were subjected to compressive loading using a universal testing machine and surface roughness testing using white light interferometer. Data were tabulated and statistically analyzed using Two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s post-hoc test. Results: Amalgomer CR recorded a significantly lower CS and higher Ra than nanofilled resin composite under different storage media. Citric acid revealed the lowest CS of Amalgomer CR followed by ethanol in comparison to distilled water with significant difference between them. For nanofilled resin composite, both citric acid and ethanol significantly decreased CS. Ethanol showed the highest Ra values for both restorative materials. Conclusions: The performance of Amalgomer CR under different storage media was inferior to nanofilled resin composite regarding compressive strength and surface roughness. Citric acid severely affected compressive strength of Amalgomer CR. Nanofilled resin composite was able to preserve its surface roughness within the clinically acceptable threshold after chemical challenge in contrary to Amalgomer CR. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| ceramic reinforced glass ionomer; Citric acid; ethanol; Compressive strength; Surface roughness | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 181 PDF Download: 283 |
||||
