Riva Light Cure/ Riva Light Cure HV research
Riva Light Cure / Riva Light Cure HV - are light cured resin reinforced glass ionomer restorative materials.
Performance
6. Knight G.; Co-curing - Better, Faster, Easier Dentistry; Shine, New Zealand, Winter/Spring 2008.
7. The Dental Advisor; Riva Light Cure; Vol 27, No 6, July-Aug 2010.
8. Costa C. A. S. et al; Pulp response after application of Riva Light Cure and Riva Self Cure glass ionomer cements in deep cavities prepared in human teeth; University of Estadual Paulista Julio de Mesquita Filho, Final report November 2010. 9. The Dental Advisor; Riva Light Cure HV; Vol 28, No.9, Nov 2011. 10. Clinician Report; Best Products of 2011; Vol 4, Issue 12, Dec 2011.
11. Dental Product Shopper; Riva Light Cure HV Glass Ionomer Restorative; Vol 6, No.2, Feb 2012.
12. Decouteau C., Ogledzki, Macdonald S., Perry R., Kugel G.; Stain Resistance of Resin Modified Glass ionomer Restoratives; Tampa AADR Abstract #475, March 2012, Tufts University, Boston, USA. 13. Decouteau C., Ogledzki, Macdonald S., Perry R., Kugel G.; Translucency of Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Restoratives; Tampa AADR Abstract #477, March 2012, Tufts University, Boston, USA. The clinical technique for sandwich restorations prescribes etching initially set auto cure glass ionomer cement (GIC) prior to placing a layer of resin bond to develop a weak mechanical bond between composite resin and GIC. Co-curing a resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) bond and composite resin to GIC may create a chemical bond and improve the bond strengths between these two materials. Riva LC and Fuji II LC were the two RMGICs used in this study. RMGIC bond and composite resin may be co-cured to GIC either before or after initial set has occurred. There are clinical situations where co-curing prior to initial set may improve the predictability of a restoration and further reduce the time required to place it. Results show pre set co-cure Riva LC has a higher average bond strength value (7.05 MPa) than pre set co-cure Fuji II LC.
To measure the flexural strengths (FS0 of a number of commercial RMGICs at 1 day and 1 week, in order to determine if strength development or ultimate strength can be related to composition.
At both times Riva Light Cure was the strongest, and Photac Fil Quick the weakest, though differences between materials were not significant.
Aim: To compare Class II microleakage in vitro of three different bases placed under composite restorations. Method: Thirty-six extracted molars were prepared as Class III MO/DO. 2mm occlusal depth. 2mm axial box depth, 3-5 mm gingival box width and 1 mm gingival margin below CEJ. Teeth were randomly divided into three groups of twelve (groups 1-2 = glass ionomer, group 3=flowable resin): Froup 1-Riva Light Cure GI (SDI). Group 2 – Riva Self Cure GI (SDI), Group 3-Esthet X Flow (Dentsply Caulk). All groups were primed with Clearfil SE Bond Primer and Bond (Kuraray). All samples were then restored using Ice nano-hybrid composite (SDI), finished and polished. Restorations were thermocycled for 300 cycles between 5oC and 55 oC with a dwell of 30 seconds and then placed in 0.5% aqueous basic fuchsin dye for 24 hours at 37 oC . Samples were sectioned mesiodistally and scored independently by two evaluations for microleakage at the occlusal-cavo and proximal-cavo surfaces under a 40x stereomicroscope. Dye penetration was evaluated using a scoring system: 0=no penetration, 1=penetration in enamel/cementum. 2=penetration at the axial wall, 3=penetration beyond the axial wall. Riva Self Cure and Riva Light Cure were more resistant to microleakage than Esthet X on both occlusal-cavo and proximal-cavo surfaces.
Clinical technique
Today, restorative dentistry emphrasizes minimally invasive approaches. This encompasses prevention, remineralization, and when needed, adhesive restorations. These approaches lessen the chance for subsequent adverse outcomes, including advancement of tooth decay, pulpal involvement and tooth fracture.
Al-Naimi O. T., McCabe J. F.; Fluoride Release of three Riva GI Products Compared with that of a Competitor Product (Third Year Report); University of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, UK, June 2008. To measure the fluoride release and the change in weight, in deionised distilled water, of two restorative materials: Riva Silver and Riva Light Cure and two fissure sealants: Riva Protect, Fuji Triage. The plan was to carry out this study over the scope of three years. When compared to conventional glass ionomers such as Riva Protect, resin modified glass ionomers. represented by Riva Ligh Cure, released significantly less.
Knight G.; Co-curing Better, Faster, Faster, Easier Dentistry; Shine, New Zealand, Winter/Spring issue, 2008. Dr Geoff Knight, an Australian general dentist and internationally noted speaker, introduces readers to one of his many modern clinical techniques for glass ionomer cements in the quickest, easiest and most effective way.
The Dental Advisor; Riva Light Cure; Vol 27, No. 6, July-Aug 2010.
Costa C. A. S. et al.; Pulp response after application of Riva Light Cure and Riva Self Cure glass ionomer cements in deep cavities prepared in human teeth; University of Estadual Paulista Julio de Mesquita Filho, Final Report, November 2010. Aim: To evaluate the dental pulp response after restoration of deep cavities with resin-modified glass-ionomer cements, Riva Light Cure, Riva Self Cure and Dycal (control). Results: At 7 days, 3 out of 5 samples restored with Riva LC exhibited discrete inflammatory response associated with slight tissue disorganisation. However, at 30 days, 3 out of 5 samples exhibited no inflammatory pulp response and "no microleakage was observed in all samples evaluated."
The Dental Advisor; Riva Light Cure HV; Vol 28, No. 9, Nov 2011. Riva Light Cure HV was evaluated by 29 Dental Advisor's consultants in 758 uses. It received a 91% clinical
Clinicians Report; Best Products of 2011; Vol 4, Issue 12, Dec 2011.
Dental Product Shopper; Riva Light Cure HV Restorative; Vol 6, No. 2, Feb 2012. Riva Light Cure HV was evaluated by twelve dentists participated in a Dental product Shopper evalaution of Riva Light Cure HV. Six of the 12 evaluators had no previous experience using glass ionomers. 83% would definitely or probably recommend to colleagues with an overall rating of 3.8 out of 5.0.
Decouteau C., Ogledzki M., Macdonald S., Perry R., Kugel G.; Stain Resistance of Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Restoratives; Tampa AADR Abstract #475, March 2012, Tufts University, Boston, USA. This invitro study evaluated the stain resistance of resin modified glass ionomer over time when exposed to tea, red wine and coffee. Methods: Total of sixty disks, twelve per group, were fabricated using shade A2 of each RMGI material (n=60). Groups: 1-RivaLC(SDI), 2- FujiII-LC(GC America) 3- Riva LCHV(SDI), 4-Photac-FilQuickAplicap(3M ESPE), and 5-KetacNano(3M ESPE). RMGI was dispensed into a 16mm-diameter stainless steel mold, compressed with a mylar strip and glass slide on both sides. Molds were light cured 1min on each side (SDI Radii Plus), and thickness of the disks measured (1.00±0.05mm). Three samples from each material were randomly assigned to red wine, black tea, coffee or unstained (control) and stored at 37ºC in de-ionized water for three days. Color and opacity were measured (XRite spectrometer) using the contrast ratio, prior to staining procedure. Water was placed between the disk and substrate to obtain good optical contact. The samples were then transferred to staining solutions and stored at 37ºC. After 4 and 5 days, samples were removed from staining solutions, washed with de-ionized water, and opacity and color were measured. Between measurements, the samples were transferred to fresh staining solution and stored at 37ºC. The changes in opacity and color were analyzed using ANOVA and Multiple Range Test (LSD,95%confidence level, p-value< 0.05).
Conclusions: Staining with beverages affects both color and opacity. Group-5 behaves differently from other RMGIs, which take up red wine and coffee stains to a similar extent. Group-5 takes up more coffee stain than red wine. Clinically, group-5 may be more appropriate for wine and tea drinkers, while the other RMGIs are more appropriate for coffee drinkers.
Decouteau C., Ogledzki M., Macdonald S., Perry R., Kugel G.; Translucency of Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Restoratives; Tampa AADR Abstract #477, March 2012, Tufts University, Boston, USA.
Objectives: This in vitro study evaluated the translucency of resin modified glass ionomer cements (RMGIs) compared to leading composites over time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Usted está aquí: Inicio
