FARKLI CAM İYONOMER SİMANLARIN RENK STABİLİTELERİ VE MİKROSERTLİKLERİ

Abstract

Amaç Cam iyonomer simanlar sahip oldukları olumlu özelliklerden dolayı diş hekimliğinde birçok farklı tedavi prosedüründe tercih edilmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, farklı cam iyonomerlerin, farklı solüsyonlarda bekletildikten sonraki renk farkı ve mikrosertlik sonuçlarını değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntem Equia Forte, AHfil Silver ve Ionofil cam iyonomerlerin her birinden 40 tane olmak üzere toplam 120 örnek hazırlandı. Her cam iyonomere ait örnekler distile su, kola, çay ve kahve solüsyonlarında bekletildi. Solüsyonlara daldırılmadan önce ve bir hafta sonra örneklerin renk ve mikrosertlik ölçümleri yapıldı. Örneklerin renk ölçümleri bir spektrofotometre ile, mikrosertlik değerleri ise Vickers mikrosertlik cihazı ile değerlendirildi. Renk analizi için, solüsyonlara daldırılmadan önce ve bir hafta sonra örneklerin L*, a* ve b* değerleri elde edilerek renk değişimleri (ΔE) hesaplandı. Elde edilen veriler varyans analizi (ANOVA) ve Tukey’s testi ile değerlendirildi. Bulgular AHfil Silver için kolada bekleyen örnekler dışında, tüm materyaller için tüm sıvılarda bekletilen örneklerde mikrosertlik değerlerinde bir artış gözlendi. En yüksek renk değişimi Equia Forte için kahvede, AHfil Silver ve Ionofil için kolada bekletilen örneklerde elde edildi (p<0.05). En düşük renk değişimi distile suda bekletilen örneklerde elde edildi ve bu değerler Equia forte ve Ionofil için, kabul edilebilir renk değişimi eşik değerinin altındaydı. Sonuç Test edilen tüm materyaller, test ortamına daldırıldıktan sonra mikrosertlik ve renk değişim değerlerinde bir farklılık göstermiştir. Mikrosertlik değerindeki artış cam iyonomer simanların zamanla artan maturasyonuna, renk değişimi ise solüsyonların içinde bulunan sarı boyar madde miktarına atfedilebilir.

Keywords

• renk stabilitesi
• mikrosertlik
• cam iyonomer siman

COLOR STABILITY AND MICROHARDNESS OF DIFFERENT GLASS IONOMER CEMENTS

Abstract

Objective Glass ionomers are preferred in many different treatment procedures in dentistry due to their positive features. The aim of this study is to evaluate the color difference and microhardness values of various glass ionomer cement after storing them in different solutions. Material and Method A total of 120 samples were prepared, including 40 of each of the Equia Forte, AHfil Silver, and Ionofil glass ionomers. Each glass ionomer sample was stored in distilled water, cola, tea, and coffee solutions. Color and microhardness measurements of the specimens were performed before and after a week before it was immersed in solutions. The color measurements of the samples were evaluated with a spectrophotometer and microhardness values were evaluated with Vickers microhardness device. For color analysis, color changes (ΔE) were calculated by obtaining the values of L*, a*, and b* of the samples before and after a week after being immersed in solutions. The data obtained were evaluated by variance analysis (ANOVA) and Tukey’s test. Results Except for specimens stored in cola for AHfil Silver, microhardness values were increased for all materials immersed in test solutions. The highest color change was obtained in coffee for Equia Forte, in the samples immersed in cola for AHfil Silver and Ionophil (p<0.05). The lowest color change was detected in samples stored in distilled water, and for Equia Forte and Ionofil, the color change was below the acceptable threshold value. Conclusion All the materials tested differ in microhardness and color change values after being immersed in the test environment. The increase in microhardness value can be attributed to the increasing maturation of glass ionomer cement over time, and color change can be attributed to the amount of yellow dyestuff contained in the solutions.

Keywords

• color stability
• microhardness
• glass ionomer cement

References

1. 1. Sharafeddin F, Azar MR, Feizi N, Salehi R. Evaluation of Surface Microhardness of Silver and Zirconia Reinforced Glass-ionomers with and without Microhydroxyapatite. J Dent Biomater, 2017;4(4):454- 460.
2. 2. Čulina MZ, Rajić VB, Šalinović I, Klarić E, Marković L, Ivanišević A. Influence of pH Cycling on Erosive Wear and Color Stability of High-Viscosity Glass Ionomer Cements. Materials. 2022; 15(3):923.
3. 3. Nicholson JW, Sidhu SK, Czarnecka B. Enhancing the Mechanical Properties of Glass-Ionomer Dental Cements: A Review. Materials. 2020 May 31;13(11):2510.
4. 4. Savas S, Colgecen O, Yasa B, Kucukyilmaz E. Color stability, roughness, and water sorption/solubility of glass ionomer-Based restorative materials. Niger J Clin Pract. 2019;22(6):824- 832.
5. 5. Buldur M, Sirin Karaarslan E. Microhardness of glass carbomer and high-viscous glass Ionomer cement in different thickness and thermo-light curing durations after thermocycling aging. BMC Oral Health. 2019;19(1):273.
6. 6. Tamilselvam S, Divyanand MJ, Neelakantan P. Biocompatibility of a conventional glass ionomer, ceramic reinforced glass ionomer, giomer and resin composite to fibroblasts: in vitro study. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2013;37(4):403-406.
7. 7. Karakaş SN, Küden C. AFM and SEM/EDS characterization of surfaces of fluorine-releasing bulk-fill restorative materials aged in common liquids. J Oral Sci. 2022;64(3):202-207.
8. 8. Poornima P, Koley P, Kenchappa M, Nagaveni NB, Bharath KP, Neena IE. Comparative evaluation of compressive strength and surface microhardness of EQUIA Forte, resin-modified glass-ionomer cement with conventional glass-ionomer cement. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2019;37(3):265-270.

9. 9. Yap AU, Ong JE, Yahya NA. Effect of resin coating on highly viscous glass ionomer cements: A dynamic analysis. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2021;113:104120.
10. 10. Fleming GJ, Kenny SM, Barralet JE. The optimisation of the initial viscosity of an encapsulated glass-ionomer restorative following different mechanical mixing regimes. J Dent. 2006;34(2):155-163.
11. 11. Yap AU, Pek YS, Cheang P. Physico-mechanical properties of a fast-set highly viscous GIC restorative. J Oral Rehabil. 2003;30(1):1-8.
12. 12. Dowling AH, Fleming GJ. Are encapsulated anterior glass-ionomer restoratives better than their hand-mixed equivalents? J Dent. 2009;37(2):133-140.
13. 13. Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V. Failure rate of high-viscosity GIC based ART compared with that of conventional amalgam restorations--evidence from an update of a systematic review. SADJ. 2012;67(7):329-331.
14. 14. Ozkanoglu S, G Akin EG. Evaluation of the effect of various beverages on the color stability and microhardness of restorative materials. Niger J Clin Pract. 2020;23(3):322-328.
15. 15. Dietschi D, Campanile G, Holz J, Meyer JM. Comparison of the color stability of ten new-generation composites: an in vitro study. Dent Mater. 1994;10(6):353-362.
16. 16. Sánchez GA, Fernandez De Preliasco MV. Salivary pH changes during soft drinks consumption in children. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2003;13(4):251-257.
17. 17. Johansson AK, Lingström P, Imfeld T, Birkhed D. Influence of drinking method on tooth-surface pH in relation to dental erosion. Eur J Oral Sci. 2004;112(6):484-489.
18. 18. Mueninghoff LA, Johnson MH. Erosion: a case caused by unusual diet. J Am Dent Assoc. 1982;104(1):51-52.
19. 19. Jyothi K, Crasta S, Venugopal P. Effect of five commercial mouth rinses on the microhardness of a nanofilled resin composite restorative material: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent. 2012;15(3):214-217.
20. 20. de Moraes RR, Marimon JL, Schneider LF, Sinhoreti MA, Correr- Sobrinho L, Bueno M. Effects of 6 months of aging in water on hardness and surface roughness of two microhybrid dental composites. J Prosthodont. 2008;17(4):323-326.
21. 21. Yap AU, Tan SH, Wee SS, Lee CW, Lim EL, Zeng KY. Chemical degradation of composite restoratives. J Oral Rehabil. 2001;28(11):1015-1021.
22. 22. Erdemir U, Yildiz E, Eren MM, Ozel S. Surface hardness evaluation of different composite resin materials: influence of sports and energy drinks immersion after a short-term period. J Appl Oral Sci. 2013;21(2):124-131.
23. 23. Vichi A, Ferrari M, Davidson CL. Color and opacity variations in three different resin-based composite products after water aging. Dent Mater. 2004;20(6):530-534.
24. 24. Erdrich A. Discoloration face‐off: fine‐hybrid composites versus nanofilled. Dental Products Report Europe. 2004:8‐11.
25. 25. Yanikoğlu N, Duymuş ZY, Yilmaz B. Effects of different solutions on the surface hardness of composite resin materials. Dent Mater J. 2009;28(3):344-351.
26. 26. Erdemir U, Yildiz E, Eren MM. Effects of sports drinks on color stability of nanofilled and microhybrid composites after longterm immersion. J Dent. 2012;40 Suppl 2:e55-e63.
27. 27. Bezgin T, Özer L, Tulga Öz F, Özkan P. Effect of toothbrushing on color changes of esthetic restorative materials. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2015;27 Suppl 1:S65-S73.
28. 28. Schulze KA, Marshall SJ, Gansky SA, Marshall GW. Color stability and hardness in dental composites after accelerated aging. Dent Mater. 2003;19(7):612-619.
29. 29. Fay RM, Servos T, Powers JM. Color of restorative materials after staining and bleaching. Oper Dent. 1999;24(5):292-296.
30. 30. Chan KC, Fuller JL, Hormati AA. The ability of foods to stain two composite resins. J Prosthet Dent. 1980;43(5):542-545.
31. 31. Hayacibara MF, Ambrozano GM, Cury JA. Simultaneous release of fluoride and aluminum from dental materials in various immersion media. Oper Dent. 2004;29(1):16-22.
32. 32. Tan BL, Yap AUJ, Ma HNT, Chew J, Tan WJ. Effect of beverages on color and translucency of new tooth-colored restoratives. Oper Dent. 2015;40(2):E56-E65.
33. 33. Barutcigil Ç, Yıldız M. Intrinsic and extrinsic discoloration of dimethacrylate and silorane based composites. J Dent. 2012;40 Suppl 1:e57-e63.
34. 34. Mundim FM, Garcia L da FR, Pires-de-Souza F de CP. Effect of staining solutions and repolishing on color stability of direct composites. J Appl Oral Sci. 2010;18(3):249-254.
35. 35. Bagheri R, Burrow MF, Tyas M. Influence of food-simulating solutions and surface finish on susceptibility to staining of aesthetic restorative materials. J Dent. 2005;33(5):389-398.
36. 36. Al-Taee L, Deb S, Banerjee A. An in vitro assessment of the physical properties of manually- mixed and encapsulated glass-ionomer cements. BDJ Open. 2020;6:12.
37. 37. Cattani-Lorente MA, Godin C, Meyer JM. Mechanical behavior of glass ionomer cements affected by long-term storage in water. Dent Mater. 1994;10(1):37-44.
38. 38. Williams, J. A. & Billington, R. W. Changes in compressive strength of glass ionomer restorative materials with respect to time periods of 24 h to 4 months. J. Oral. Rehabil. 18, 163–168 (1991).
39. 39. Nomoto R, McCabe JF. Effect of mixing methods on the compressive strength of glass ionomer cements. J Dent. 2001;29(3):205-210.
40. 40. De Moor RJ, Verbeeck RM. Effect of acetic acid on the fluoride release profiles of restorative glass ionomer cements. Dent Mater. 1998;14(4):261-268.