树脂基和清漆基玻璃离子水门汀表面保护剂的比较评价——分光光度法分析。

Biomaterial investigations in dentistry Pub Date : 2020-01-11 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01 DOI:10.1080/26415275.2020.1711760
Shreya Tyagi, Abi M Thomas, Neeta Devi Sinnappah-Kang
{"title":"树脂基和清漆基玻璃离子水门汀表面保护剂的比较评价——分光光度法分析。","authors":"Shreya Tyagi,&nbsp;Abi M Thomas,&nbsp;Neeta Devi Sinnappah-Kang","doi":"10.1080/26415275.2020.1711760","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objectives:</b> To evaluate and compare the effectiveness of resin- and varnish-based surface protective agents on Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC). The different surface protective agents used were: Vaseline<sup>®</sup>, GC Fuji VARNISH™ (varnish), G-Coat Plus™ (resin) and EQUIA<sup>®</sup> Coat (resin). <b>Method:</b> Thirty-six identical specimens of GIC were made. Six specimens were used in preparation of standard solution and remaining thirty were divided into five groups with six specimens in each group. Each test specimen was coated with one of the surface protecting agent except for the control group. The specimens were immersed separately into 1 ml of 0.05% methylene blue solution for 24 h and then rinsed with deionised water and further immersed into tubes containing 1 ml of 65% nitric acid. Specimens, once completely dissolved in nitric acid solution, were filtered and centrifuged. The supernatant was used to determine the absorbance using a spectrophotometer. The effectiveness of the surface protecting agents for the GIC was recorded in micrograms of dye per specimen, where low values indicate good protection. <b>Result:</b> Tukey HSD test revealed that GC Fuji VARNISH™ (varnish; mean = 21.25 µg/ml), G-Coat Plus™ (resin; mean = 30.39 µg/ml) and EQUIA<sup>®</sup> Coat (resin; mean = 9.32 µg/ml) were statistically not significantly different to each other and were effective in protecting the surface of GIC. <b>Significance:</b> The study found that there was a statistically significant difference between control and GC Fuji VARNISH™, G-Coat Plus™ and EQUIA<sup>®</sup> Coat. The three agents were found to be equally effective in protecting the surface of GIC.</p>","PeriodicalId":72378,"journal":{"name":"Biomaterial investigations in dentistry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/26415275.2020.1711760","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparative evaluation of resin- and varnish-based surface protective agents on glass ionomer cement - a spectrophotometric analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Shreya Tyagi,&nbsp;Abi M Thomas,&nbsp;Neeta Devi Sinnappah-Kang\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/26415275.2020.1711760\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Objectives:</b> To evaluate and compare the effectiveness of resin- and varnish-based surface protective agents on Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC). The different surface protective agents used were: Vaseline<sup>®</sup>, GC Fuji VARNISH™ (varnish), G-Coat Plus™ (resin) and EQUIA<sup>®</sup> Coat (resin). <b>Method:</b> Thirty-six identical specimens of GIC were made. Six specimens were used in preparation of standard solution and remaining thirty were divided into five groups with six specimens in each group. Each test specimen was coated with one of the surface protecting agent except for the control group. The specimens were immersed separately into 1 ml of 0.05% methylene blue solution for 24 h and then rinsed with deionised water and further immersed into tubes containing 1 ml of 65% nitric acid. Specimens, once completely dissolved in nitric acid solution, were filtered and centrifuged. The supernatant was used to determine the absorbance using a spectrophotometer. The effectiveness of the surface protecting agents for the GIC was recorded in micrograms of dye per specimen, where low values indicate good protection. <b>Result:</b> Tukey HSD test revealed that GC Fuji VARNISH™ (varnish; mean = 21.25 µg/ml), G-Coat Plus™ (resin; mean = 30.39 µg/ml) and EQUIA<sup>®</sup> Coat (resin; mean = 9.32 µg/ml) were statistically not significantly different to each other and were effective in protecting the surface of GIC. <b>Significance:</b> The study found that there was a statistically significant difference between control and GC Fuji VARNISH™, G-Coat Plus™ and EQUIA<sup>®</sup> Coat. The three agents were found to be equally effective in protecting the surface of GIC.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72378,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biomaterial investigations in dentistry\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/26415275.2020.1711760\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Biomaterial investigations in dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/26415275.2020.1711760\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biomaterial investigations in dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/26415275.2020.1711760","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

目的:评价和比较树脂基和清漆基表面保护剂对玻璃离子水门汀(GIC)的防护效果。使用的不同表面保护剂有:凡士林®、GC富士清漆™(清漆)、G-Coat Plus™(树脂)和EQUIA®Coat(树脂)。方法:制作36例相同的GIC标本。取6个标本制备标准溶液,其余30个标本分为5组,每组6个标本。除对照组外,每个试样都涂上一种表面保护剂。将标本分别浸入1 ml 0.05%亚甲基蓝溶液中24 h,然后用去离子水冲洗,再浸入含有1 ml 65%硝酸的管中。标本在硝酸溶液中完全溶解后,过滤并离心。上清液用分光光度计测定吸光度。GIC表面保护剂的有效性以每个样品的染料微克为单位记录,其中低值表明保护良好。结果:Tukey HSD测试显示GC富士清漆™(清漆;平均值= 21.25µg/ml), g - coat Plus™(树脂;平均值= 30.39µg/ml)和EQUIA®Coat(树脂;平均值= 9.32µg/ml),差异无统计学意义,均能有效保护GIC表面。意义:研究发现对照组与GC Fuji VARNISH™、G-Coat Plus™和EQUIA®Coat之间存在统计学差异。发现这三种药物对GIC表面的保护同样有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A comparative evaluation of resin- and varnish-based surface protective agents on glass ionomer cement - a spectrophotometric analysis.

Objectives: To evaluate and compare the effectiveness of resin- and varnish-based surface protective agents on Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC). The different surface protective agents used were: Vaseline®, GC Fuji VARNISH™ (varnish), G-Coat Plus™ (resin) and EQUIA® Coat (resin). Method: Thirty-six identical specimens of GIC were made. Six specimens were used in preparation of standard solution and remaining thirty were divided into five groups with six specimens in each group. Each test specimen was coated with one of the surface protecting agent except for the control group. The specimens were immersed separately into 1 ml of 0.05% methylene blue solution for 24 h and then rinsed with deionised water and further immersed into tubes containing 1 ml of 65% nitric acid. Specimens, once completely dissolved in nitric acid solution, were filtered and centrifuged. The supernatant was used to determine the absorbance using a spectrophotometer. The effectiveness of the surface protecting agents for the GIC was recorded in micrograms of dye per specimen, where low values indicate good protection. Result: Tukey HSD test revealed that GC Fuji VARNISH™ (varnish; mean = 21.25 µg/ml), G-Coat Plus™ (resin; mean = 30.39 µg/ml) and EQUIA® Coat (resin; mean = 9.32 µg/ml) were statistically not significantly different to each other and were effective in protecting the surface of GIC. Significance: The study found that there was a statistically significant difference between control and GC Fuji VARNISH™, G-Coat Plus™ and EQUIA® Coat. The three agents were found to be equally effective in protecting the surface of GIC.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊最新文献
Recipient of Biomaterial Investigations in Dentistry's Young Author Award 2023. Reliability and agreement of root length measurements during orthodontic treatment in images from different CBCT machines using multiplanar reconstruction. The sealing ability of different endodontic biomaterials as an intra-orifice barrier: evaluation with high-performance liquid chromatography. An in vitro study on the influence of laser-activated irrigation on infiltration and leakage of a dual curing-resin cement as an endodontic sealer Accumulation and removal of Streptococcus mutans biofilm on enamel and root surfaces in vitro
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1