Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Acta Stomatologica Croatica logoLink to Acta Stomatologica Croatica
. 2019 Mar;53(1):37–46. doi: 10.15644/asc53/1/4

Effects of Curing Modes on the Microhardness of Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cements

Jelena Spajic 1, Matej Par 2, Ognjen Milat 3, Nazif Demoli 3, Ruza Bjelovucic 4, Katica Prskalo 2,✉
PMCID: PMC6508928  PMID: 31118531

Abstract

Objective

This study evaluated the effects of curing modes on surface microhardness of visible light-cured resin-modified glass ionomer cements (VLC RMGIC) and a giomer after different storage periods in comparison to auto-cured resin-modified glass ionomer cements (AC RMGIC).

Materials and Methods

The following materials were used: VLC RMIC: Fuji II LC Improved, Photac Fil Quick Aplicap, AC RMGIC: Fuji Plus, Fuji VIII and Giomer: Beautifil II. The measurements of microhardness were performed using a Vickers test (100 g loads were applied for 10 s) in the following time intervals: immediately after the recommended cure and after 1, 7 and 14 days of immersion in distilled water. Five samples (d=4 mm, h=2 mm) were prepared for each combination of curing mode and tested material.

Results

After 14 days, an improvement of microhardness was evident in all tested materials. The full factorial ANOVA identified a highly significant (p<0.001) effect of the factors “material”, “time” and “curing mode (“low”, “soft“, „high”) for the light-cured materials Beautifil II, Fuji II LC and Photac Fil Quick. There was a statistically significant difference in the microhardness between different material types (Beautifil II˃Fuji II LC˃Photac Fil Quick˃Fuji Plus˃Fuji VIII) and curing modes (low ˂soft ˂high).

Conclusions

Material type had the greatest impact on microhardness, followed by the factor of time, while curing modes showed a considerably smaller influence on microhardness of the light-cured materials.

Key words: Dental Materials, Light-Curing of Dental Adhesives, Glass Ionomer Cements, Hardness Tests

INTRODUCTION

After almost 45 years of clinical use glass ionomer cements (GICs) have undergone some changes aiming to improve their properties, handling characteristics, efficacy and longevity of restorations. One of important changes is hydrophilic resin monomer incorporation to GIC, resulting in resin-modified GIC (RMGIC) (1).

This modification was an attempt to overcome moisture sensitivity and low physical properties of conventional GIC while still maintaining unique properties of GIC such as chemical adhesion to tooth structure and fluoride release (2).

Basically, RMGICs consist of ion-leachable glass, water-soluble polymeric acids, polymerizable organic monomers with appropriate initiation system and water (3). Nowadays the available RMGIC products contain different combinations of methacrylate monomers, among which 2-hydroxyethylmethacrylate is (HEMA) the most commonly used (4-7).

Resin monomer incorporation modifies the chemistry of the GIC setting reaction (8). The fundamental acid-base reaction begins as soon as the powder (base) and liquid (acid) are combined, forming the network of polysalts. This reaction lasts approximately several minutes, although further maturation continues over extended times (9). Acid-base reaction is supplemented by free-radical mediated polymerization of methacrylate monomers, whereas both reactions occur concurrently, if not disturbed. Monomer polymerization can be induced chemically or photo-chemically depending on the initiator system used. Thus, RMGICs available on the market can be designated as dual cure (acid-base reaction + monomer light-cure or acid-base reaction + monomer auto-cure) or triple cure (acid-base reaction + monomer light-cure + monomer auto-cure) materials.

The set of RMGIC has a complicated structure of interpenetrating networks of poly (HEMA) and polyacrylate salts in which the unreacted (10), remaining parts of glass particles are embedded.

At an early stage of the setting process, there is a competitive nature of network-forming reactions (11, 12) and a sensitive balance exists between these two processes (12).

The setting reaction of light-cured RMGIC (VLC RMGIC) involves a rapid polymerization reaction of the resinous component and a slower acid-base reaction, both of which mutually interact (13). Visible light command set of RMGIC has an advantage in clinical procedure, because polymerized monomer immediately protects the acid-base reaction from the problems of water balance and stabilizes the setting cement thus allowing the continuation of clinical procedure.

It is important to distinguish RMGICs from the materials that resemble GICs, namely polyacid modified resin composite (3) and giomers that are compositionally more similar to light cured resin composites. Giomers contain surface reaction type of pre-reacted glass-ionomer (S-PRG) fillers (14) obtained by reacting acid-reactive fluoride-containing glass with polyacids in the presence of water (15) and are capable of fluoride release/recharge in a wet environment.

RMGICs represent an established class of restorative materials with good clinical performance. Nevertheless, potential cytotoxicity may occur from the presence of the residual monomer (16). Palmer et al. (17) investigated HEMA release from Fuji Lining LC, Vitremer, Vitrebond and Fuji II LC and found different material behavior with regards to the effect of curing time.

Apart from the potential cytotoxicity, it is very important to achieve an adequate polymerization of the resinous component in order to ensure basic mechanical properties and longevity of restorations (18). Polymerization effectiveness is influenced by the type of light curing unit (LCU), its irradiance and exposure time (18, 19).

Nowadays, different types of LCUs are being used for the polymerization of light activated resinous materials (20), and halogen and light emitting diode light curing units (LED LCU) are most commonly used "third generation" of LED LCUs which generates multiple wavelengths The "third generation" of LED LCUs which generates multiple wavelengths is particularly effective for polymerization of any type of dental restorative material (20).

Multiple studies have compared the effectiveness of the halogen and LED LCU with similar (600 mW/cm2) (21), or different light intensities (halogen 350 mW/cm2, LED 1400 mW/cm2, LED 1100 mW/cm2) (22), and with different light intensity and exposure time (halogen 700 mW/cm2, LED 500 mW/cm2; 20 s and 40 s) on the microhardness (MH) of RMGIC (23). Microhardness (MH) value was dependent on the light used to cure them (21, 22). In relation to the curing time, similar MH results were obtained with halogen and LED 40 s time exposure, while a significant difference was found between halogen 40 s and LED 20 s (23). Parisay et al. (24) also compared halogen and LED curing units with different light intensity (halogen 600 mW/cm2, LED 700 mW/cm2), and exposure time (20 s, 30 s, 40 s) on top and bottom MH. The top surface MH was higher in all experimental groups. An increase in both the top and the bottom MH was observed when exposure time was increased. In the halogen group, there were no significant differences between 20, 30 and 40 s, while in the LED group, 40 s curing yielded significantly better results than 20 and 30 s.

Also, there are studies that compared MH of resin-modified versus conventional GIC with regards to depth of cure and post-irradiation hardness (25-30).

Considering the depth of cure, VLC RMGIC should be placed in layers which by manufactures recommendations should not exceed 2 mm. Contrary, auto-cured RMGIC (AC RMGIC) may be placed in bulk and are clinically more convenient.

The aim of this study was to assess the MH of AC RMGICs, as well as VLC RMGICs and giomer light-cured with three different curing modes of LED unit after artificial aging for up to 14 days.

Research hypotheses tested were:

  1. MH values will be affected by material type; giomer is expected to show higher MH than GICs, whereas AC and VLC RMGICs are expected to show similar MH values

  2. MH values of VLC RMGICs will be influenced by three different curing modes

  3. MH values will improve with artificial aging.

Material and methods

Microhardness measurements

This study evaluated two VLC RMGICs: (Fuji II LC (F2LC), Photac Fil Quick Aplicap (PFQ)), two AC RMGICs: (Fuji Plus (FP), Fuji VIII GP (FVIII)) and a giomer: (Beautifil II (B2)). All tested materials were of A3 shade and their detailed composition is given in Table 1.

Table 1. Materials used for the measurement of Vickers microhardness.

Material code Product name Type of material Manufacturer Shade
EXP
LOT		 Composition
F2LC Fuji II LC Resin-modified GIC,
Visible light-cured,
Restorative		 GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan A3
2018-10-26
1610278		 Liquid: polyacrylic acid; HEMA;2,2,4 TMHEDC; TEGDMA.
Powder: fluoro-alumino-silicate glass.
PFQ Photac Fil Quick Aplicap Resin-modified GIC,
Visible light-cured,
Restorative		 3M, Seefeld, Germany A3
2019-02
669852		 Liquid: glass ionomer compatible monomers and oligomers; acrylic- and maleic-acid copolymers; camphorquinone; stabilizers; water.
Powder: Na-Ca-Al-La fluorosilicate glass; amine activator.
FVIII Fuji VIII GP Resin-modified GIC,
Auto-cured,
Restorative		 GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan A3
2019-08-06
1708071		 Liquid: 2-HEMA 25-50%; tartaric acid 5-10%;
7,7,9(or 7,9,9)-trimethyl-4,13-dioxo-3,14-dioxa-5,12-diazahexadecane-1,16-diyl bismethacrylate 1-5%;
2-Hydroxy-1,3 dimethacryloxypropane 1-5%.
Powder: N/A
FP Fuji PLUS Resin-modified GIC,
Auto-cured,
Luting		 GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan A3
2019-07-19
1707201		 Liquid: 2-HEMA 25-50%;
7,7,9(or 7,9,9)-trimethyl-4,13-dioxo-3,14-dioxa-5,12-diazahexadecane-1,16-diyl bismethacrylate 1-5%;
2-Hydroxy-1,3 dimethacryloxypropane 1-5%.
Powder: N/A
B2 Beautifil II Giomer,
Visible light-cured,
Restorative		 Shofu Inc., Kyoto, Japan A3
2020-04-30
051705		 Bis-GMA 7.5%, Triethylenglycol dimethacrylate 5%, Aluminofluoro-borosilicate glass 7.5%, Al2O3, DL-Camphorquinone.
Open in a new tab

(2,2,4 TMHEDC=2,2,4 trimethyl hexamethylene dicarbonate; HEMA=2-hydroxyethylmethacrylate; TEGDMA=triethylene glycol dimethacrylate)

For each experimental group, five cylindrical specimens (d=4 mm, h=2 mm) were prepared using Teflon molds. For encapsulated materials F2LC, PFQ, FP and FVIII, the capsules were mixed according to respective manufacturers' instructions and then extruded into molds. B2 was applied into molds using a spatula, taking care not to incorporate air inclusions. Mold openings were covered with a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film and compressed using a stainless steel slab to remove the excess material. For the light-curable materials, specimens were illuminated with a LED LCU (Bluephase G2, Ivoclar-Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) positioned immediately above the specimen. Each experimental group was illuminated with one of the following light-curing modes for 20 s: low (650 mW/cm2), soft (650-1100 mW/cm2) and high (1100 mW/cm2). Specimen preparation was performed at room temperature, while subsequent aging was simulated by the storage at 37±1°C in deionized water in an incubator (Cultura, Ivoclar-Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) for up to 14 days.

Vickers MH was evaluated at four time intervals: immediately after specimen preparation and manufacturer recommended setting time 0 day, 1 day, 7 days and 14 days. The surfaces of aged specimens were gently blotted to remove water before the measurements. A diamond pyramid was indented into irradiated specimen surfaces using the Leitz Miniload 2 microhardness tester (Leitz, Oberkochen, Germany) with a load of 100 g, dwell time of 10 s and 5 indentations per specimen. MH was calculated by the following equation: HV=1.8544xF/d2, where d is the diagonal of the indentation and F=m×g (g=9.81 N/kg, m=load).

Statistical analysis

Normality of distribution and homogeneity of variances was confirmed using the Shapiro-Wilk's and the increase of both the top and the bottom MH was observed the Levene's test, respectively. The assumption of sphericity for repeated measurements was confirmed using the Mauchly's test. Mean values of MH for each experimental group were compared using a mixed model ANOVA, which accounted for the clustering effect of the repeated measurements performed on individual specimens (31). Post-hoc multiple comparisons were made using a Tukey's HSD correction. Partial eta-squared statistics were used to evaluate relative influences of the factors “time”, “material” and “curing mode”. Statistical software SPSS 20 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) was used, with the level of significance set at 0.05.

RESULTS

Mean MH values as a function of material, aging time and curing mode are presented in Figure 1. The full factorial ANOVA which considered the light-cured materials B2, F2LC and PFQ identified a highly significant (p<0.001) effect of the factors “material”, “time” and “curing mode”, with the relative influences of individual factors represented by partial eta squared values of 0.991, 0.778 and 0.171, respectively.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

- Mean values (±s. d.) of microhardness (in Vickers hardness numbers) for tested materials as a function of curing mode and post-irradiation time intervals. Same letters and numbers above the bars denote statistically homogeneous groups among time points, within each curing mode as follows: lowercase letters – “low”, uppercase letters – “soft” and numbers – “high”. Same uppercase letters at the middle of the bars represent statistically homogeneous groups for the comparison among curing modes. Same lowercase letters at the bottom of the bars denote statistically homogeneous groups for the comparison among materials.

The highest partial eta squared for the factor “material” indicates that the highest amount of variation of the dependent variable MH is attributable to the material type. For individual materials, MH values were in the following ranges: 70.4-74.4 for B2, 34.1-44.1 for F2LC, 26.7-41.1 for PFQ, 31.0-40.5 for FP and 27.8-38.6 for and FVIII.

The factor “time” showed a significant interaction (p<0.001) with the factor “material”, reflecting a more pronounced MH improvement with time in the group of glassionomer-based materials compared to the giomer B2. After 14 days, the MH values for B2 improved for 2.9-5.7% compared to the immediate (0-day) values, whereas a much more extensive improvement was identified in the glassionomer-based materials: 20.9-22.4% in F2LC, 47.7-51.0% in PFQ, 30.9% in FP and 38.7% in FVIII.

Although statistically significant, the influence of the factor “curing mode” on MH was the weakest among all tested factors. This modest effect of different curing modes is visually observable in Figure 1 within all combinations of factors “material” and “time” as a trend of increase in the order of low < soft < high. However, due to the small effect size, the differences among curing modes were statistically significant only in B2 after 1 and 7 days and in F2LC after 14 days. In these cases, the MH appeared significantly higher for the “high” curing mode compared to the “low” mode.

DISCUSSION

The aim of this study was to determine the MH of AC and VLC RMGICs, as well as a giomer and to determine a dependence of the curing type (AC/VLC) and storage time on the MH as well as a dependence of three different curing modes (“low”, “soft”, “high”) of the LED curing unit and storage time.

In previous studies, the dependence of the MH of composite materials on the applied polymerization modes of halogen curing units was demonstrated. In a study by Soh and Yap (32) the polymer structure of composite materials was curing mode dependent. Pulse delay curing mode resulted in lower crosslink density and lower Knoop hardness. In da Silva's research (33), higher values of Knoop MH of composite materials were found by exposing the material to high polymerization mode instead of standard and gradual.

A high power LED LCU was chosen in this study since such a curing unit type is the most frequently used in current clinical practice. Hardness was evaluated after four post-irradiation times, starting immediately after manufacturer recommended curing time and followed by artificial aging for 1, 7 and 14 days. For the first measurement, the samples were without contact to storage media, thus simulating a clinical situation in which a restoration is isolated from saliva and water during the placement and light-curing. Afterwards, the restorations were continuously exposed to wet environment throughout their whole service life. Although it is known that MH varies throughout the recommended layer thickness (23, 31), the present study focused on the effect of different light-curing modes on MH measured on the specimen surface, in accordance to previous studies (27).

Among all tested materials, B2 showed the highest values of MH which were nearly two times higher than these of the RMGICs tested. Such a finding was expected because of the giomer composition close to composite resins, despite the difference in inorganic filler.

The MH values of B2 generally ranged from 70.4±2.5 to 74.4±2.2 (Figure 1). These findings are comparable to the results reported by Mobarak et al. (22) in a study on the influence of different LCU (halogen 350 mW/cm2, LED 1400 mW/cm2, LED 1100 mW/cm2). The highest MH values of Beautifil, which is compositionally similar to B2, measured fifteen minutes after curing were achieved by Bluephase LCU (LED 1100 mW/cm2), which agrees with our MH values obtained in high curing mode immediately after curing (72.9±0.9, 71.7 ± 2.4 respectively).

During the 14 days of artificial aging, MH values for B2 showed a small but continuous increase. Yap et al. (34) evaluated the hardness of Beautifil, after the 30 days storage in distilled water and reported MH of 72.7±3.8, which is comparable to our results after 14 days, especially to those obtained in low mode because they used LCU with the mean intensity of 460±4 mW/cm2. Unfortunately, the cited study did not evaluate MH at earlier time points, thus providing no data for comparison with our results.

VLC RMGICs exhibited a similar influence of curing modes on MH as it was in B2.

A statistically significant effect of the curing mode identified in the omnibus test suggests that MH was positively related to the total radiant energy received by specimen surfaces. Radiant energy (J) delivered by each curing mode (low 9.9, soft 14.7, high 17.5) concurs with the ranking of MH values: low < soft < high (35). The inability of the statistical analysis to detect significant differences within each material x time combination was due to a very small effect size. When the curing mode “high” was used instead of “low”, the differences in MH amounted to about 1-3, which represents an improvement in the range of 2-7%?

A similar influence of the curing modes in the polymerization process of two different material groups tested is an interesting finding since the setting mechanism of the RMGICs involves acid-base reaction and polymerization of resinous part of the cement. Both reactions are diffusion-controlled; therefore their rates decrease as the network formation impairs the diffusion of reactive species. Since the free-radical-mediated polymerization reaction is inherently faster than the acid-base reaction, the light activation causes the resinous network formation to occur ahead of the acid-base reaction, thus inhibiting it (11, 36). In a Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) study of visible light-cured RMGICs Fuji II LC and Photac Fil Quick Aplicap, the rate of the acid-base reaction was the highest during the light activation (37). These results were explained by the decline in the reaction rate of the diffusion-controlled acid-base reaction through the formation of an infinite methacrylate network (gelation) and additionally by the contribution of the heating effect which originated from the exothermic polymerization reaction, as well as from the curing unit (37).

However, our results showed that MH of VLC RMGICs continued to increase for 14 days post-irradiation. These findings correspond to Ellakuria et al. (26). They found increasing MH up to 15 days, after which MH decreased up to 12 months.

Young (38) investigated conventional GIC (Fuji IX) and RMGIC (Fuji II LC Improved) by FTIR investigation and observed two separate diffusion mechanisms for acid neutralization. The earlier-occurring, faster reaction stopped after 30 and 150 min respectively, suggesting that the water required for its progress was depleted after a certain time period. The slower reaction was also an acid-base neutralization which was triggered by absorbed water, therefore occurring with a delay. Thus, the post-irradiation increase in MH may be mainly addressed to the continuation of the acid-base reaction.

There are several materials related factors that may influence the mechanical properties of RMGIC such as resin monomer content, type of resin monomers, particle volume and size, polymeric acids molecular weight, number and size of voids and water content. From the point of MH, particle volume and size are of particular interest.

Mean particle size of F2LC and PFQ are 5.9 μm and 5.56 μm respectively (39) and even less in F2LC Improved (38).

Xie et al. (40) evaluated mechanical properties and microstructures of GICs and found that the mechanical properties were closely related to their microstructures. The Knoop hardness (KHN) obtained in their study was significantly greater for Fuji II LC Improved than for Photac Fil, as it was in our study comparing F2LC and PFQ. Based on the SEM fractography, the author suggested that in the case of Fuji II LC Improved a better indentation resistance might be attributed to homogeneously distributed small glass particles, while on the fractured surface of Photac Fil less exposed glass particles well-integrated in the resinous matrix were identified.

MH values for PFQ significantly increased from 0 d to 1 d, followed by a less pronounced trend of increase towards 14 d. This evidence might be explained by research of Kakaboura et al. (41) who used FTIR analysis and found that acid-base reaction of F2LC, Photac-Fil Aplicap (earlier formulation of PFQ) and Vitremer was significantly slowed by the light polymerization. Between the tested materials, the smallest extent of the acid-base reaction was found in Photac-Fil Aplicap. The authors attributed these findings to the majority of its polyacrylic acid added to powder component, which required more water infiltration for full reaction. This could explain significantly lower MH values measured for PFQ in our study at 0 d in all three curing modes when samples were without contact to storage media. After 1 day aging in deionized water, water sorption initiated more acid-base reaction resulting in significantly increased MH. Between tested materials, including AC RMGICs, such behaviour was only observed in PFQ and this could be due to the proprietary material composition which is not fully disclosed by the manufacturer.

AC RMGICs, FP, and FVIII, although for different clinical use (luting of indirect restorations and restorative treatment, respectively) exhibited MH values in the range of VLC RMGICs. Also, the influence of aging time was similar to that observed in VLC RMGIC products. It can be assumed that despite the monomer polymerization in AC RMGICs is longer than in VLC RMGICs, monomer polymerization influenced the acid-base reaction in the same way in both material groups, resulting in a continuation of the and acid-base reaction in tested time period, which was reflected as an increase in MH.

MH values attained by different curing modes were positively related to radiant energy delivered to the specimen surface. Despite being statistically significant, the differences among curing modes can be considered negligible from the clinical standpoint. Material composition exerted a stronger effect on MH values, suggesting that the material choice had more impact on the mechanical properties than the curing mode. An improvement in MH was identified in all materials after an artificial aging of 14 days, reflecting the long-term continuation of the setting reaction.

CONCLUSIONS

All curing modes investigated can be effectively used in clinical work. Material type had more impact on microhardness than the curing mode.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Dental companies 3M (Seefeld, Germany) and GC Corporation (Tokyo, Japan) are gratefully acknowledged for donation of materials.

Footnotes

Conflict of interest: None declared

References

  • 1.Davidson CL, Mjor IA. - editors. Advances in Glass-Ionomer Cements. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co., 1999; p. 51-7. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Sidhu SK. Glass-ionomer cements restorative materials. A sticky subject? Aust Dent J. 2011. Jun;56(1) Suppl:23–30. 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2010.01293.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.McLean JW, Nicolson JW, Wilson AD. Proposed nomenclature for glass-ionomer dental cements and related materials. Quintessence Int. 1994. Sep;25(9):587–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.MeSH Browser [database on the Internet]. GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan. Fuji II LC capsules liquid SDS. Retrieved online July 3, 2018. Available from: http://www.gcaustralasia.com/Upload/product/pdf/4/MSDS-GC-Fuji-II-LC-CAPSULE-AU.pdf
  • 5.MeSH Browser [database on the Internet]. 3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany. Photac Fil Quick Aplicap capsules MSDS. Retrieved online November 4, 2017. Available from: https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/mediawebserver?mwsId=SSSSSuUn_zu8l00x482v5xtG5v70k17zHvu9lxtD7SSSSSS
  • 6.MeSH Browser [database on the Internet]. GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan. Fuji VIII capsules MSDS. Retrieved online November 4, 2017. Available from: http://cdn.gceurope.com/v1/PID/fuji8gp/sds/SDS_FUJI_VIII_GP_Capsules_HR.pdf
  • 7.MeSH Browser [database on the Internet]. GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan. Fuji Plus capsules MSDS. Retrieved online June 23, 2018. Available from: https://cdn.gceurope.com/v1/PID/fujiplus/sds/SDS_Fuji_plus_Capsule_HR.pdf
  • 8.Nicholson JW. Chemistry of glass-ionomer cements: a review. Biomaterials. 1998. Mar;19(6):485–94. 10.1016/S0142-9612(97)00128-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Mount GJ. Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Glass-ionomer cements: Past, present and future. Oper Dent. 1994. May-Jun;19(3):82–90. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Sidhu SK, Watson TF. Resin-modified glass ionomer materials. A status report for the American Journal of Dentistry. Am J Dent. 1995. Feb;8(1):59–67. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Berzins DW, Abey S, Costache MC, Wilkie CA, Roberts HW. Resin-modified glass-ionomer setting reaction competition. J Dent Res. 2010. Jan;89(1):82–6. 10.1177/0022034509355919 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Yelamanchili A, Darvell BW. Network competition in a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement. Dent Mater. 2008. Aug;24(8):1065–9. 10.1016/j.dental.2007.12.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Nicholson JW, Anstice HM. The physical chemistry of resin modified glass ionomers. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 1994;5(3):119–22. 10.1007/BF00053330 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.MeSH Browser [database on the Internet]. Shofu Inc., Kyoto, Japan. Beautifil II MSDS. Retrieved online June 24, 2018. Available from: from http://www.shofu.com/shofu_images/MSDS/beautifil%20ii.pdf
  • 15.Ikemura K, Tay FR, Endo T, Pashley DH. A review of chemical-approach and ultramorphological studies on the development of fluoride-releasing dental adhesives comprising new pre-reacted glass ionomer (PRG) fillers. Dent Mater J. 2008. May;27(3):315–39. 10.4012/dmj.27.315 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Nicholson JW, Czarnecka B. The biocompatibility of resin-modified glass-ionomer cements for dentistry. Dent Mater. 2008. Dec;24(12):1702–8. 10.1016/j.dental.2008.04.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Palmer G, Anstice HM, Pearson GJ. The effect of curing regime on the release of hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) from resin-modified glass-ionomer cements. J Dent. 1999. May;27(4):303–11. 10.1016/S0300-5712(98)00058-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.La Torre G, Marigo L, Pascarella GA, Rumi G. Light-emitting diodes (LED) technology applied to the photopolymerization of resin composites. Minerva Stomatol. 2003. May;52(5):193–200. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Yap AU, Soh MS. Curing efficacy of a new generation high-power LED lamp. Oper Dent. 2005. Nov-Dec;30(6):758–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Rueggeberg FA. State-of-the-art: Dental photocuring – A review. Dent Mater. 2011. Jan;27(1):39–52. 10.1016/j.dental.2010.10.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Cefaly DF, de Mello LLCP, Wang L, Lauris JRP, D’ Alpino PHP. Effect of light curing unit on resin-modified glass-ionomer cements: a microhardness assessment. J Appl Oral Sci. 2009. May-Jun;17(3):150–4. 10.1590/S1678-77572009000300004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Mobarak E, Elsayad I, Ibrahim M, El-Badrawy W. Effect of LED light-curing on the relative hardness of tooth-colored restorative materials. Oper Dent. 2009. Jan-Feb;34(1):65–71. 10.2341/08-38 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Alpöz AR, Ertuḡrul F, Cogulu D, Ak AT, Tanoḡlu M, Kaya E. Effect of light curing method and exposure time on mechanical properties of resin based dental materials. Eur J Dent. 2008. Jan;2:37–42. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Parisay I, Bahrololomi Z, Ghafournia M, Solaimani AA, Boruziniat A. The effects of Exposure Times and Light Curing Sources on Surface Micro-Hardness of a Resin Modified Glass Ionomer. J Dent Mater Tech. 2014;3(2):77–81. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Zaazou MH, Nagi SM. Effect of light curing on micro-hardness of resin-modified versus conventional glass-ionomer restoration as function of depth and time. J Appl Sci Res. 2013;9(8):5277–82. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ellakuria J, Triana R, Mínguez N, Soler I, Ibaseta G, Maza J, et al. Effect of one-year storage on the surface microhardness of resin-modified versus conventional glass-ionomer cements. Dent Mater. 2003. Jun;19(4):286–90. 10.1016/S0109-5641(02)00042-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Magni E, Ferrari M, Hickel R, Ilie N. Evaluation of the mechanical properties of dental adhesives and glass-ionomer cements. Clin Oral Investig. 2010. Feb;14(1):79–87. 10.1007/s00784-009-0259-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Swift EJ, Jr, Pawlus MA, Vargas MA, Fortin D. Depth of cure of resin-modified glass ionomers. Dent Mater. 1995. May;11(3):196–200. 10.1016/0109-5641(95)80018-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Roberts HW, Berzins DW, Charlton DG. Hardness of three resin-modified glass-ionomer restorative materials as a function of depth and time. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2009;21(4):262–72. 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2009.00273.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Yap AUJ. Post-irradiation hardness of resin-modified glass ionomer cements and a polyacid-modified composite resin. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 1997. Jul;8(7):413–6. 10.1023/A:1018501520931 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Sever I, Klaric E, Tarle Z. Accounting for measurement reliability to improve the quality of inference in dental microhardness research: a worked example. Clin Oral Investig. 2016. Jul;20(6):1143–9. 10.1007/s00784-015-1600-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Soh MS, Yap AU. Influence of curing modes on crosslink density in polymer structures. J Dent. 2004. May;32(4):321–6. 10.1016/j.jdent.2004.01.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.da Silva EM, Poskus LT, Guimaräes JG. Influence of light-polymerization modes on degree of conversion and mechanical properties of resin composites: comparative analysis between a hybrid and nanofilled composite. Oper Dent. 2008. May-Jun;33(3):287–93. 10.2341/07-81 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Yap AU, Wang X, Wu X, Chung SM. Comparative hardness and modulus of tooth-colored restoratives: a depth-sensing microindentation study. Biomaterials. 2004. May;25(11):2179–85. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.09.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Harlow JE, Sullivan B, Shortall AC, Labrie D, Price RB. Characterizing the output settings of dental curing lights. J Dent. 2016. Jan;44:20–6. 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.10.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Spajić J, Prskalo K, Sariri K, Par M, Panduric V, Demoli N. Dimensional Changes of Glass Ionomers and a Giomer during the Setting Time. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2018;52(4):298–306. 10.15644/asc52/4/3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Roberts HW, Berzins DW. Early Reaction Kinetics of Contemporary Glass-Ionomer Restorative Materials. J Adhes Dent. 2015. Feb;17(1):67–75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Young AM. FTIR investigation of polymerization and polyacid neutralization kinetics in resin-modified glass-ionomer dental cements. Biomaterials. 2002. Aug;23(15):3289–95. 10.1016/S0142-9612(02)00092-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Bala O, Arisu HD, Yikilgan I, Arslan S, Gullu A. Evaluations of surface roughness and hardness of different glass ionomer cements. Eur J Dent. 2012. Jan;6(1):79–86. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Xie D, Brantley WA. Culbertson, Wang G. Mechanical properties and microstructures of glass-ionomer cements. Dent Mater. 2000. Mar;16(2):129–38. 10.1016/S0109-5641(99)00093-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Kakaboura A, Eliades G, Palaghias G. An FTIR study on the setting mechanism of resin-modified glass ionomer restoratives. Dent Mater. 1996. May;12(3):173–8. 10.1016/S0109-5641(96)80017-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Acta Stomatologica Croatica are provided here courtesy of University of Zagreb: School of Dental Medicine

RESOURCES