KACD
Search
- Page Path
- HOME > Search
Basic Research
- Biocompatibility of experimental mixture of mineral trioxide aggregate and glass ionomer cement
- Min-Jae Oh, Yu-Na Jeong, In-Ho Bae, So-Young Yang, Bum-Jun Park, Jeong-Tae Koh, Yun-Chan Hwang, In-Nam Hwang, Won-Mann Oh
- J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2010;35(5):359-367. Published online September 30, 2010
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2010.35.5.359
-
Abstract
PDF
PubReader
ePub Objectives The purpose of the present
in vitro study was to evaluate the biocompatibility of mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) mixed with glass ionomer cement (GIC), and to compare it with that of MTA, GIC, IRM and SuperEBA.Materials and Methods Experimental groups were divided into 3 groups such as 1 : 1, 2 : 1, and 1 : 2 groups depending on the mixing ratios of MTA powder and GIC powder. Instead of distilled water, GIC liquid was mixed with the powder. This study was carried out using MG-63 cells derived from human osteosarcoma. They were incubated for 1 day on the surfaces of disc samples and examined by scanning electron microscopy. To evaluate the cytotoxicity of test materials quantitatively, XTT assay was used. The cells were exposed to the extracts and incubated. Cell viability was recorded by measuring the optical density of each test well in reference to controls.
Results The SEM revealed that elongated, dense, and almost confluent cells were observed in the cultures of MTA mixed with GIC, MTA and GIC. On the contrary, cells on the surface of IRM or SuperEBA were round in shape. In XTT assay, cell viability of MTA mixed with GIC group was similar to that of MTA or GIC at all time points. IRM and SuperEBA showed significantly lower cell viability than other groups at all time points (
p < 0.05).Conclusions In this research MTA mixed with GIC showed similar cellular responses as MTA and GIC. It suggests that MTA mixed with GIC has good biocompatibility like MTA and GIC.
- 21 View
- 0 Download
Original Article
- The influence of IRM temporary restorations on marginal microleakage of dentin adhesives
- Young-Gon Cho, Hyun-Kyung Kim, Young-Gon Lee
- J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2003;28(1):1-10. Published online January 31, 2003
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2003.28.1.001
-
Abstract
PDFPubReaderePub
This study investigated the influence of IRM on marginal microleakage of 5th generation adhesives. Class V cavities with gingival margins in dentin were prepared on both buccal and lingual surfaces of 60 extracted human molar teeth. Prepared teeth were randomly divided into six groups. Group 1 and 4 received no temporary restoration with IRM. Group 2 and 5 were covered with IRM mixed at P/L ratio(10g/1g). Group 3 and 6 were covered with IRM mixed at P/L ratio(10g/2g). The temporary restorations were removed mechanically with an ultrasonic scaler after one-week storage in distilled water. The cavities were restored using one of two adhesives and composites; Single Bond/Filtek Z 250(Group 1, 2 and 3), UniFil Bond/UniFil F(Group 4, 5 and 6).
Following one day storage in distilled water, the restored teeth were thermocycled for 500 cycles(between 5℃ and 55℃) and immersed in 2% methylene blue for dye penetration testing. The results were analysed using Kruskal-Wallis Test, Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon signed ranked test at a significance level of 0.05.
The results of this study were as follows:
1. Ranking of mean microleakage scores at the enamel margins was Group 1<Group 3<Group 2<Group 4<Group 5<Group 6. The microleakage of Group 6 was significantly higher than that of Groups 1, 2 and 3(p<0.05).
2. At the enamel margins, without regard to pretreatment with IRM, the microleakage of Single Bond was lower than that of UniFil Bond.
3. Ranking of mean microleakage scores at the dentin margins was Group 4<Group 1<Group 5<Group 6<Group 3<Group 2. But there were no significant difference among microleakages of each group(p>0.05).
4. At the dentin margins, the microleakage of the group not pretreated with IRM was lower than that of the group pretreated with IRM. And the microleakage of UniFil Bond was lower than that of Single Bond.
5. Compared with microleakages between the enamel and dentin margins of each groups, Group 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 at dentin margin were higher microleakage than those at enamel margin. There were significant difference between enamel and dentin microleakage of Group 2 and 3(p<0.05).
- 22 View
- 0 Download
First
Prev
