riva light cure a light cured resin reinforced glass ionomer restorative material. performace
- Knight G.M., McIntyre J.M., Mulyani, Bond strengths between composite resin and auto cure glass ionomer cement using the co-cure technique, University of Adelaide, Australia.
- Al-Naimi, Lopes M.B., McCabe J.F., Prentice LH, Flexural Strength of Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cements (RMGICs), Brisbane 2006 IADR Abstract #1615, University of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, UK.
- Duong T., Tran L., Perry R., Kugel G., Microleakage Testing in Vitro Using Three Different Bases Under Composites, New Orleans IADR Abstract No. #92383, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Boston, USA.
performace
Knight G.M., McIntyre J.M., Mulyani,
Bond strengths between composite resin and auto cure glass ionomer cement using the co-cure technique, University of Adelaide, Australia.
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.
performace
Al-Naimi, Lopes M.B., McCabe J.F., Prentice LH,
Flexural Strength of Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cements (RMGICs), Brisbane 2006 IADR Abstract #1615, University of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, UK.
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.
| | Flexural strength (Mpa) + SD |
| Riva Light Cure (SDI) | Photac Fil Quick (3M/Espe) | Fuji II LC ( GC) |
| 1 day | 58.5 + 11.7 | 46.3 + 11.0 | 55.9 + 12.0 |
| 1 week | 68.8 + 12.1 | 60.9 + 5.4 | 64.4 + 7.3 |
At both times Riva Light Cure was the strongest, and Photac Fil Quick the weakest, though differences between materials were not significant.
performace
Duong T., Tran L., Perry R., Kugel G.,
Microleakage Testing in Vitro Using Three Different Bases Under Composites, New Orleans IADR Abstract No. #92383, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Boston, USA.
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.
Rva Self Cure and Riva Light Cure were more resistant to microleakage than Esthet X on both occlusal-cavo and proximal-cavo surfaces.
