Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorDowling, Adam H*
dc.contributor.authorFleming, Garry J P*
dc.date.accessioned2011-03-10T10:12:13Z
dc.date.available2011-03-10T10:12:13Z
dc.date.issued2009-02
dc.identifier.citationAre encapsulated anterior glass-ionomer restoratives better than their hand-mixed equivalents? 2009, 37 (2):133-40 J Denten
dc.identifier.issn0300-5712
dc.identifier.pmid19059689
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jdent.2008.10.006
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10147/124125
dc.description.abstractEncapsulated anterior GI restoratives outperform their hand-mixed equivalents for the range of powder to liquid mixing ratios routinely encountered clinically such that they are advocated for use in clinical practice. Anhydrous GI restorative formulations are more susceptible to clinically induced variability on mixing compared with conventional GI restorative formulations that contained a polyalkenoic acidic liquid.
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subject.meshCapsules
dc.subject.meshChemistry, Pharmaceutical
dc.subject.meshCompressive Strength
dc.subject.meshDental Restoration Wear
dc.subject.meshDental Restoration, Permanent
dc.subject.meshElastic Modulus
dc.subject.meshGlass Ionomer Cements
dc.subject.meshHumans
dc.subject.meshImaging, Three-Dimensional
dc.subject.meshMaleates
dc.subject.meshMaterials Testing
dc.subject.meshPowders
dc.subject.meshSolutions
dc.subject.meshStress, Mechanical
dc.subject.meshSurface Properties
dc.subject.meshTime Factors
dc.titleAre encapsulated anterior glass-ionomer restoratives better than their hand-mixed equivalents?en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentMaterials Science Unit, Division of Oral Biosciences, Dublin Dental School & Hospital, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland. adam.dowling@dental.tcd.ieen
dc.identifier.journalJournal of dentistryen
dc.description.provinceLeinster
html.description.abstractThe performance of encapsulated anterior GI restoratives were compared with their hand-mixed equivalents for the range of powder to liquid mixing ratios routinely encountered clinically. The clinically induced variability of powder to liquid mixing variations of an anhydrous GI restorative formulation was also compared with conventional GI restorative formulations that contained a polyalkenoic acidic liquid.
html.description.abstractMean compressive fracture strengths, mean elastic moduli and mean total volumetric wear were determined for the encapsulated anterior GI restoratives mechanically mixed in a Capmix or Rotomix machine and the hand-mixed GI restoratives prepared with powder contents reduced from that recommended by the manufacturer (100%) in 10% increments to 50% for a constant weight of liquid. Multiple comparisons of the group means were made using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's multiple range tests employed at P<0.05.
html.description.abstractFor the encapsulated GI restoratives, the mean compressive fracture strength, mean elastic modulus and in-vitro wear resistance were significantly increased compared with their hand-mixed equivalents prepared with powder contents below that recommended by the manufacturers. The conventional GI restoratives resulted in a linear deterioration (R2>0.95) of the mean compressive fracture strength and mean elastic modulus with powder content compared with the bi-modal deterioration for the anhydrous GI restorative.
html.description.abstractEncapsulated anterior GI restoratives outperform their hand-mixed equivalents for the range of powder to liquid mixing ratios routinely encountered clinically such that they are advocated for use in clinical practice. Anhydrous GI restorative formulations are more susceptible to clinically induced variability on mixing compared with conventional GI restorative formulations that contained a polyalkenoic acidic liquid.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Publisher version

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record