Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ir.swu.ac.th/jspui/handle/123456789/13299
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorChailert O.
dc.contributor.authorBanomyong D.
dc.contributor.authorVongphan N.
dc.contributor.authorEkworapoj P.
dc.contributor.authorBurrow M.F.
dc.date.accessioned2021-04-05T03:23:09Z-
dc.date.available2021-04-05T03:23:09Z-
dc.date.issued2018
dc.identifier.issn20411626
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85057243847
dc.identifier.urihttps://ir.swu.ac.th/jspui/handle/123456789/13299-
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85057243847&doi=10.1111%2fjicd.12308&partnerID=40&md5=0605f6a520d0584056c75fe90fde1651
dc.description.abstractAIM: The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of the thin or thick placement of resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) lining on the adaptation of resin composite restorations bonded with two types of adhesive. METHODS: Sixty deep occlusal cavities were prepared and divided into two groups: etch-and-rinse adhesive (Single Bond 2) or self-etching adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond). Specimens were further divided into three subgroups: no lining (control), lined with 0.5 mm-thin RMGIC, or lined with 1 mm-thick RMGIC (Vitrebond). Each cavity was bonded, restored with resin composite, and sectioned to obtain two specimens. One specimen was stained with 2% methylene blue, and dye staining at the pulpal floor and cavity walls was calculated. Other specimens were investigated for micro-gap formation using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). RESULTS: For Single Bond 2, dye staining was not significantly different among the three groups. For Clearfil SE Bond, lining absence showed the lowest dye staining at the pulpal floor. Dye staining of 0.5 mm-thin RMGIC significantly increased, but 1 mm-thick RMGIC tended to reduce dye staining. Comparing the two adhesives, there was no significant difference in dye staining. From the SEM images, micro-gaps were more frequently observed in the 0.5 mm-thin lining groups. CONCLUSIONS: RMGIC should be placed as a thick lining, if indicated. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
dc.subjectbisphenol A bis(2 hydroxypropyl) ether dimethacrylate
dc.subjectClearfil SE Bond
dc.subjectdentin bonding agent
dc.subjectglass ionomer
dc.subjectresin
dc.subjectresin cement
dc.subjectsingle bond
dc.subjectVitrabond
dc.subjectchemistry
dc.subjectdental restoration
dc.subjectdental surgery
dc.subjecthuman
dc.subjectin vitro study
dc.subjectmaterials testing
dc.subjectmolar tooth
dc.subjectprocedures
dc.subjectscanning electron microscopy
dc.subjectsurface property
dc.subjectBisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate
dc.subjectComposite Resins
dc.subjectDental Cavity Preparation
dc.subjectDental Restoration, Permanent
dc.subjectDentin-Bonding Agents
dc.subjectGlass Ionomer Cements
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectIn Vitro Techniques
dc.subjectMaterials Testing
dc.subjectMicroscopy, Electron, Scanning
dc.subjectMolar
dc.subjectResin Cements
dc.subjectSurface Properties
dc.titleInternal adaptation of resin composite restorations with different thicknesses of glass ionomer cement lining
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.holderScopus
dc.identifier.bibliograpycitationJournal of investigative and clinical dentistry. Vol 9, No.2 (2018), p.e12308-
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/jicd.12308
Appears in Collections:Scopus 1983-2021

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in SWU repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.