4.8 Article

Effects of incorporation of nano-fluorapatite or nano-fluorohydroxyapatite on a resin-modified glass ionomer cement

期刊

ACTA BIOMATERIALIA
卷 7, 期 3, 页码 1346-1353

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2010.10.029

关键词

Micro-tensile bond strength; Shear bond strength; Demineralization; Fluoride; Enamel

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to investigate the fluoride release properties and the effect on bond strength of two experimental adhesive cements. Synthesized particles of nano-fluorapatite (nano-FA) or nano-fluorohydroxyapatite (nano-FHA) were incorporated into a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Fuji Ortho LC) and characterized using X-ray diffraction and scanning electron microscopy. Blocks with six different concentrations of nano-FA or nano-FHA were manufactured and their fluoride release properties evaluated by ultraviolet spectrophotometry. The unaltered glass ionomer cement Fuji Ortho LC (GC, control) and the two experimental cements with the highest fluoride release capacities (nano-FA + Fuji Ortho LC (GFA) and nano-FHA + Fuji Ortho LC (GFHA)) were used to bond composite blocks and orthodontic brackets to human enamel. After 24 h water storage all specimens were debonded, measuring the micro-tensile bond strength (mu TBS) and the shear bond strength (5135), respectively. The optimal concentration of added nano-FA and nano-FHA for maximum fluoride release was 25 wt.%, which nearly tripled fluoride release after 70 days compared with the control group. GC exhibited a significantly higher SBS than GFHA/GFA, with GFHA and GFA not differing significantly (P>0.05). The mu TBS of GC and GFA were significantly higher than that of GFHA (P <= 0.05). The results seem to indicate that the fluoride release properties of Fuji Ortho LC are improved by incorporating nano-FA or nano-FHA, simultaneously maintaining a clinically sufficient bond strength when nano-FA was added. (C) 2010 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据