• Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry
• /
• v.37 no.4
• /
• pp.422-428
• /
• 2010

Giomer is fluoride-releasing, resin-based dental materials that comprise PRG(pre-reacted glass ionomer) filler. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength of Giomer using self-etching primer systems to bovine dentin. Bovine incisors were mounted in self-curing orthodontic resin and the facial surfaces were wet ground on SIC paper to expose the dentin. Total 100 samples were made and divided randomly into 4 groups, Giomer group(I), Composite resin group(II) and Compomer group(III), Giomer and single bottle adhesive group(IV). The shear bond strengths of 25 samples per each group were measured using universal testing machine. And data were analyzed statistically with One-way ANOVA and Scheffe test. Giomer group(I) showed the significantly higher bond strength than Compomer group(III)(p<0.05). There was no significant difference between Giomer group(I) and Composite resin group(II)(p>0.05). And there is no significant difference between gourp(I) and group(IV). Based on the results of present study, the use of Giomer as an esthetic restorative material for primary teeth might be justified. It is considered that more study about the fluoride releasing ability is needed to evaluate the anticariogenic effect of giomer.

• Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry
• /
• v.40 no.3
• /
• pp.168-176
• /
• 2013

The aim of this study was to evaluate the acid neutralizing capacity and to observe surface changes of giomer in comparison with composite resin, when it comes in contact with an acidic solution. A packable giomer(Beautifil II) and a flowable giomer(Beautifil Flow F02) were used as experimental groups, while a packable composite resin($Filtek^{TM}$ Z-250) was used as control group. pH values were measured after mixing the specimens of the disc and powder types with a pH 2.0 hydrochloric acid solution, respectively. Also, in the case of powder type giomers used in the earlier experiment, their pH values were measured again after mixing them with a fresh acid solution. Moreover, surface structure changes of disc type specimens were observed by using a scanning electron microscopy(SEM). In the disc type test, the pH values of packable giomer were significantly increased after 24 hours(p < 0.05). In contrast, in the powder type test, the pH values of packable and flowable giomers were dramatically increased within 30 minutes. The pH value of packable giomer, in particular, was higer than that of flowable giomer(p < 0.05). In the repeated neutralizing test, the degree of pH variation was lower than that of the previous neutralizing test(p < 0.05). Erosive changes on the surface of packable giomer were observed to be more than those on composite resin and flowable giomer as well. In conclusion, giomer has a acid neutralizing capacity, when it comes in contact with an acidic solution. Especially, packable giomer with high filler content has a greater acid neutralizing capacity than flowable giomer.

• Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry
• /
• v.46 no.1
• /
• pp.1-9
• /
• 2019

The aim of this study was to compare the degree of conversion and polymerization shrinkage of low and high viscosity bulk-fill giomer-based and resin-based composites. Two bulk-fill giomer (Beautifil Bulk Restorative (BBR), Beautifil Bulk Flowable (BBF)), two bulk-fill (Tetric N-Ceram Bulk-fill (TBF), SureFil SDR flow (SDR)) and two conventional resin composites (Tetric N-Ceram (TN), Tetric N-flow (TF)) were selected for this study. The degree of conversion was measured by using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. Polymerization shrinkage was measured with the linometer. For all depth, BBR had the lowest degree of conversion and SDR had the highest. At 4 mm, the degree of conversion of low and high viscosity bulk-fill giomer resin composites was lower than that of bulk-fill resin composites (p < 0.05). At the depth between 2 mm and 4 mm, there were significant difference with TBF, TN and TF (p < 0.05), while no significant difference in the degree of conversion was measured for BBR, BBF and SDR. Polymerization shrinkage of six resin composites decreased in the following order: TF > SDR > BBF > TBF > TN and BBR (p < 0.05). Polymerization shrinkage of bulk-fill giomer resin composites was lower than that of bulk-fill resin composites (p < 0.05). From this study, it is found that the bulk-fill giomer resin composites and TBF were not sufficiently cured in 4 mm depth. The degree of conversion of low and high viscosity bulk-fill giomer resin composites was significantly lower than bulk-fill resin composites in both 2 mm and 4 mm depths. Therefore, such features of bulk-fill giomer resin composites should be carefully considered in clinical application.

• Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry
• /
• v.37 no.4
• /
• pp.438-444
• /
• 2010

Giomer is a recently developed light-cured resin-based material. This study compared compressive strength and microhardness of composite resin, giomer and compomer after 5000 times of thermocycling at $5^{\circ}C$ and $55^{\circ}C$. The following results were obtained. 1. Composite resin resulted in the highest compressive strengths both before and after thermocycling, followed by giomer and compomer. There were statistically significant differences between composite resin and giomer/compomer (p<0.05), but no statistically significant differences between giomer and compomer. 2. Both before and after thermocycling, microhardness values appeared in the order of composite resin, giomer and compomer with statistically significant differences in microhardness of composite resin, giomer and compomer (p<0.05). 3. After thermocycling, microhardness of composite resin, giomer and compomer decreased with a statistically significant difference (p<0.05). In conclusion, giomer demonstrates higher microhardness than compomer, but lower compressive strength and microhardness than composite resin. In addition, the decrease in microhardness and compressive strength after thermocycling proves the necessity for a thorough understanding in mechanical properties of restoration materials prior to their clinical application.

• Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry
• /
• v.50 no.4
• /
• pp.434-442
• /
• 2023

This study was aimed to evaluate the bonding performance of a self-adhesive giomer and compare it to a conventional flowable composite resin with regard to shear bond strength and microleakage in enamel and dentin. Healthy human premolars extracted for orthodontic treatments were used in the study. For shear bond strength tests, enamel and dentin specimens were prepared for the study group with self-adhesive giomer and for the control group with conventional flowable composite resin with a 5th-generation adhesive system. A universal testing machine was used to measure the shear bond strength. For the microleakage tests, specimens were immersed in a 2% methylene blue solution for 24 hours, cut into sections, and evaluated with a stereomicroscope for the extent of dye penetration. The results of the study showed no statistically significant difference in shear bond strength between the self-adhesive giomer and the conventional flowable composite resin in enamel (p = 0.091). On the contrary, in dentin, the self-adhesive giomer showed significantly lower shear bond strength (p < 0.0001). The microleakage of the self-adhesive giomer was significantly higher than that of the conventional flowable composite resin (p = 0.002). Self-adhesive giomer is considered useful for restoring small cavities at the enamel level of pediatric patients by reducing chair time with the advantage of a simple bonding process. However, as the study was conducted in a laboratory setting, further research in a clinical environment is deemed necessary.

• Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry
• /
• v.37 no.4
• /
• pp.429-437
• /
• 2010

The aim of this study was to evaluate the fluoride release and microhardness of Beautifil II as giomer(Group I), F2000 Compomer as compomer(Group II), GC Fuji II LC Capsule as resin-modified glass ionomer(Group III) and $Filtek^{TM}$ Z350 as composite resin(Group IV) according to time. Forty discs(5 mm diameter and 2 mm height) were prepared for each material. Each disc was immersed in 3 ml of de-ionized water within polyethylene tube and stored at $37^{\circ}C$. Evaluations were performed by pH/ISE meter for analysis of fluoride release and hardness testing machine for analysis of microhardness over 31 days. The results can be summarized as follows : 1. For all groups except group IV, the greatest fluoride release was observed after the first day of the study period and then dramatically diminished over time. On the 7th day of the study period, fluoride release level was stabilized. 2. Group III showed the highest fluoride release among test groups and then group II, group I were followed. Significant difference in cumulative fluoride release over 31 days was found between each groups. Group IV showed no fluoride release during study period. 3. Group IV showed the highest microhardness among test groups and then group I, group II, group III were followed. Significant difference in microhardness was found between each group, except between group I and group II. 4. After 31 days, microhardness was slightly diminished in every group. However, no significant difference was found.

• Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry
• /
• v.44 no.2
• /
• pp.180-187
• /
• 2017

The aim of this study was to investigate and compare fluoride release of giomer (Beautifil Injectable), compomer ($Dyract^{(R)}$ XP), and composite resin ($Filtek^{TM}$ Z350XT) through adhesive (Scotchbond Multi-Purpose) layer. A total of 20 cylindrical specimens (7 mm in diameter and 2 mm in thickness) of giomer, compomer and composite resin were prepared according to the manufacturers' instruction (10 with adhesive and 10 without adhesive). These specimens were immersed individually in 2 mL of deionized water at $37^{\circ}C$. The amount of fluoride release was measured on the $1^{st}$, $3^{rd}$, $7^{th}$, $14^{th}$, $21^{st}$, and $28^{th}$ day. To confirm uniform application of the adhesive layer, additional 18 specimens with adhesive were prepared and evaluated by scanning electron microscope. The giomer and compomer groups with adhesive applied showed no fluoride release until the $3^{rd}$ day. However, from the $7^{th}$ day, fluoride was detected. The application of dentin adhesive did not completely prevent fluoride release from giomer or compomer. Fluoride release was significantly (p < 0.05) reduced through the adhesive layer. The reduction of fluoride release was more remarkable on the giomer.

• Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry
• /
• v.48 no.4
• /
• pp.367-375
• /
• 2021

This study evaluated the fluoride release of alkasite restorative material (ARM) and giomer penetrating the dentin adhesive layer. Twenty specimens were prepared for each restorative material, and dentin adhesive with uniform thickness was applied to half of them. The prepared specimens were placed in a polyethylene tube containing 2.0 mL of deionized water and deposited in a 37.0℃ water bath for the study duration. The amount of fluoride release was measured on the 1^st, 3^rd, 7^th, 14^th, 21^st, and 28^th days after deposition. The dentin adhesive applied to the ARM and giomer could not completely block the fluoride release; however, it significantly reduced its amount. The cumulative amount of fluoride release of the ARM after 28 days was higher than that of the giomer regardless of the application of dentin adhesive.

• Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry
• /
• v.43 no.3
• /
• pp.292-298
• /
• 2016

The aim of this study was to compare the compressive strength and amount of fluoride-release of recently developed giomers (Beautifil Flow Plus F00, Beautifil Flow Plus F03), conventional giomer, resin-modified glass ionomer and composite resin. Fifteen cylindrical specimens for each group were prepared to measure fluoride release. It was measured using pH/ISE meter and fluoride ion electrode every 24 hours for the first 7 days and every 72 hours until the 31st day. Also, fifteen cylindrical specimens for each group after thermocycling were prepared to measure compressive strength. The universal testing machine (Kyung-sung Testing Machine Co., Korea) was used and the crosshead speed was 1 mm/min. Recently developed giomers showed more fluoride release and higher compressive strength than conventional giomer. It would be a good alternative to composite resin.

• Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry
• /
• v.39 no.4
• /
• pp.383-388
• /
• 2012

The aim of this study was to compare the compressive strength and the surface microhardness of Beautifil flow (Shofu, Kyoto, Japan) with $Filtek^{TM}$ Z350, Z350XT (3M ESPE, USA). Fifteen specimens from each material were fabricated for testing. Compressive strength was measured by using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Surface microhardness values were measured by using Vickers hardness tester under 4.9 N load and 10 seconds dwelling time. The compressive strength of Group 2 $Filtek^{TM}$ Z350XT shows the highest value as $218.7{\pm}18.4$ MPa and Group 1 $Filtek^{TM}$ Z350 was $205.5{\pm}27.1$ MPa. Group 3 Beautifil flow F00 was $176.5{\pm}30.3$ MPa, and Group 4 Beautifil flow F10 was $173.4{\pm}26.2$ MPa. The compressive strength of Group 2 is higher than Group 3 and 4 (p < 0.05). The surface microhardness of Group 2 $Filtek^{TM}$ Z350XT shows the highest value as $39.1{\pm}2.1$ and Group 4 Beautifil flow F10 was $27.9{\pm}1.8$. And Group 3 Beautifil flow F00 was $23.1{\pm}1.1$, Group 1 $Filtek^{TM}$ Z350 was $20.4{\pm}0.9$. There was a statistical significant difference in surface microhardness between all groups (p < 0.05). In conclusion, the compressive strength of giomer was below the level of flowable composite resin. However, the surface microhardness of giomer is comparable to that of flowable composite resin. Giomer would be the good alternative to composite resin, if there is improvement of the compressive strength of giomer.