
   @article{article_461517, title={Evaluation of physical and mechanical properties of glass carbomer cement under in vitro conditions}, journal={Turkish Journal of Clinics and Laboratory}, volume={9}, pages={281–286}, year={2018}, DOI={10.18663/tjcl.461517}, author={Tatlı, Esra Ceren and Özer, Levent}, keywords={Çocuk diş hekimliği; Cam karbomer siman; Kompomer; Cam iyonomer siman.}, abstract={&amp;lt;p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:200%;"&amp;gt; &amp;lt;b&amp;gt;Aim: &amp;lt;/b&amp;gt; To evaluate
the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) and microhardness of glass carbomer
cement in comparison to conventional glass ionomer cement and compomer. &amp;lt;/p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:200%;"&amp;gt; &amp;lt;b&amp;gt;Material and Methods: &amp;lt;/b&amp;gt; The bonding strength test involved 60, second deciduous molar teeth. The
dentine bonding strength of the restorative materials was evaluated by a μTBS test.
Failure modes were determined by light microscopy. Plexi-glass molds of 5 × 2
mm (diameter × depth) were used for Vickers’ microhardness analysis.
Seventy-five samples were evaluated, considering twenty-five samples for each
material. The data were statistically analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis test, at
p≤0.05. &amp;lt;b&amp;gt; &amp;lt;i&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/b&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;b&amp;gt; &amp;lt;i&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/b&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;b&amp;gt; &amp;lt;i&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/b&amp;gt; &amp;lt;p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:200%;"&amp;gt; &amp;lt;b&amp;gt;Results: &amp;lt;/b&amp;gt;There
was no significant difference between the μTBS of the glass carbomer (2.0 MPa)
and glass ionomer (1.7 MPa) (p &amp;lt;span style="font-family:Symbol;"&amp;gt;&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;0.05). However, the μTBSof the
compomer (9.4 MPa) was higher than the glass carbomer and glass ionomer (p &amp;lt;span style="font-family:Symbol;"&amp;gt;&amp;lt; &amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;0.001).
No significant difference was found among the three materials, regarding
adhesive, cohesive and mixed failure modes (p &amp;lt;span style="font-family:Symbol;"&amp;gt;&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;0.05). The compomer presented the
highest microhardness value, followed by the glass ionomer and finally, the
glass carbomer (p&amp;lt;0.001). &amp;lt;/p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:200%;"&amp;gt; &amp;lt;b&amp;gt;Conclusion: &amp;lt;/b&amp;gt;The
glass carbomer cement showed a lower μTBSto the dentine than the compomer.
Furthermore, the microhardness of the carbomer was lower than the compomer and
glass ionomer. &amp;lt;/p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;}, number={4}, publisher={DNT Ortadoğu Yayıncılık A.Ş.}