| dc.description.abstract | Objective
To evaluate the influence of external energy sources on the dynamic setting process of glass-ionomer restorative materials.
Methods
Eighteen brands of GIC were studied: Bioglass R (Biodinâmica; G1), Chemfil Rock (Dentsply; G2), Equia Forte (GC; G3), Gold Label 2 (GC; G4), Gold Label 9 (GC; G5), Glass Ionomer Cement Type II — (Shofu; G6), Ionglass R (Maquira; G7), Ion Z (FGM; G8), Ionomaster (Wilcos; G9), Ionofil Plus (Voco; G10), Ionostar Plus (Voco; G11), Ketac Molar easymix (3M ESPE; G12), Magic Glass R (Vigodent; G13), Maxxion R (FGM; G14), Riva Self Cure (SDI; G15), Vidrion R (SS White; G16), Vitro Fil R (Nova DFL; G17) and Vitro Molar (Nova DFL; G18). LED, halogen light or ultrasound (n = 20 for each set) applied for 30 s was used to activate setting, and a control group of each material was allowed to set without activation. Samples were analyzed by FTIR spectroscopy using the ratio of intensities of bands at 1637 cm−1 (carboxylate) and 1720 cm−1 (carbonyl) as a function of time. Means and standard deviations were subjected to ANOVA and Tukey tests (p < 0.05).
Results
All three activation modes significantly reduced the time at which the carboxylate content became stable in G2, G4, G5, G6, G8, G10, G14, G16, G17 and G18. By contrast, in G1, G7, G12 and G15 no activation source had any significant effect (p > 0.05).
Significance
External activation sources, namely LED, halogen light and ultrasound, typically but not always increase the setting rate of restorative GICs. | en_US |
