Banerjee S., Banerjee R. A comparative evaluation of the shear bond strength of five different orthodontic bonding agents polymerized using halogen and light-emitting diode curing lights: An in vitro investigation. Indian J Dent Res. 2011; 22(5):731-2.
Fleming GJ., Burke FJ., Watson DJ., Owen FJ. Materials for restoration of primary teeth: I. Conventional materials and early glass ionomers. Dent Update. 2001; 28:486–491.
Hasti K., Jagadeesh HG., Patil NP. Evaluation and comparison of the effect of different surface preparations on bond strength of glass ionomer cement with nickel-chrome metal-ceramic alloy: a laboratory study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2011 Mar; 11(1):14-9.
Henostroza HG. Adhesión en Odontología. Edit. Maio, I ed. Madrid, España.2003.
Hickel RA., Folwaczny M. Various forms of glass ionomers and compomers. Oper Dent. 2001; (Supplement (6)):177–190.
Holton JR. Bond strengthof Light-cured and two autocured glass ionomer liners. J Dent 1990;18: # 271-275.
Kandaswamy D., Rajan KJ., Venkateshbabu N., Porkodi I.Shear bond strength evaluation of resin composite bonded to glass-ionomer cement using self-etching bonding agents with different pH: In vitro study.J Conserv Dent. 2012 Jan; 15(1):27-31.
Kerby RE., Bleiholder RF. Physical properties of stainless- steel and silver-reinforced glass ionomer cements. J Dent Res. 1991; 70:1358–1361.
Sumita B. Mitra, Brant L. Kedrowsky. Long term mechanical properties of glass ionomers. Dent. Mater. 1994;10:78- 82.
Sumita B. Mitra, Phd, Joe D. Oxman, Phd, Afshin Falsafi, Phd & Tiffany Ton,Bs. Fluoride release and recharge behavior of a nano-filled resin-modified glass ionomer compared with that of other fluoride releasing materials. Am J Dent 2011; 24:372-378).
Tate WH., Powers JM. Surface roughness of composites and hybrid ionomers. Oper Dent. 1996; 21:53–58.
Williams JA., Billington RW., Changes in compressive strength of glass ionomer materials with respect to time periods of 24 h to 4 months. J Oral Rehabil. 1991;18:163–168.
WilliamsJA.,BillingtonRW.,PearsonGJ.Thecomparative strengths of commercial glass-ionomer cements with and without metal additions. Br Dent J. 1992;172:279– 282.
Xie D., Brantley WA., Culbertson BM., Wang G. Mechanical properties and microstructures of glass-ionomer cements. Dent Mater. 2000; 16:129–138.
© Odovtos, 2014
Alejandra Hernández Rivera
Universidad de Costa Rica, Facultad de Odontología
How to Cite
Comparación de la resistencia compresiva entre diferentes tipos de ionómeros de vidrio
Οδοντος (Odontos): Número 14
The purpose of this article was to compare the compressive strength of different glass ionomers. 30 samples were made, divided into groups of 10. Ketac Easy Mix, Vitremer and Ketac N 100, were used for the test. Cylinders were made of each material, following the manufacturer’s instructions for each case, using molds Ultradent preformed for this purpose. The samples were stored in water at 37 ° C for 24 hrs, before being faulted in an Olsen testing machine Tiinus H 10 Ks at a speed of 0.1 cm / min. The Ketac Easy Mix had a compressive strength of 40.9 Mpa, the Vitremer had an average strength of 111.7 MPa, whereas for Ketac N 100 was 117.4 MPa. Hybrids glass ionomers have a higher compression resistance, far superior to conventional glass ionomer evaluated