Evaluation of remineralization potential of activa bioactive restorative material versus resin modified glass ionomer in restoration of premolars : In vitro study / Sally Mohamed Mosallam ; Supervised Randa Youssef Abdalgawad , Fatma Ahmed Hamdy Elshehaby , Marwa Aly Fouad
Material type:
- تقييم معدل اعادة التمعدن لحشوة الاكتيفا البيولوجيه مقابل حشوة الزجاج المعدل راتينيجيا في ترميم الاسنان الضاحكه : دراسه معملية [Added title page title]
- Issued also as CD
Item type | Current library | Home library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
قاعة الرسائل الجامعية - الدور الاول | المكتبة المركزبة الجديدة - جامعة القاهرة | Cai01.09.07.M.Sc.2020.Sa.E (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | Not for loan | 01010110083716000 | ||
![]() |
مخـــزن الرســائل الجـــامعية - البدروم | المكتبة المركزبة الجديدة - جامعة القاهرة | Cai01.09.07.M.Sc.2020.Sa.E (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 83716.CD | Not for loan | 01020110083716000 |
Thesis (M.Sc.) - Cairo University - Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine - Department of Pedodontics
Aim or purpose: This study aims to evaluate the remineralization potential of ACTIVA Bioactive restorative material compared to light-cured resin-reinforced glass ionomer restorative. Materials and methods: A standardized Class V cavity was prepared in forty-two extracted sound human premolars.The mineral content of the teeth was measured before and after demineralization, then the demineralized teeth were left as a negative control (Group I) or restored with either ACTIVATM Bioactive restorative material (Group II) or light-cured resin-reinforced glass ionomer restorative (Group III). The teeth were stored in artificial saliva for 23 h and 1h in lactic acid solution at 37{u02DA}C to simulate the oral environment and the acid challenges occurring intraorally.The mineral content was evaluated using energy dispersive x-ray and scanning electron microscope (EDX/SEM) in each group after 24 h, 1month later, and after three months.Results: A significant statistical difference in fluoride and calcium release between the two groups was observed. Light-cured resin-reinforced glass ionomer restoration showed higher release of fluoride compared to ACTIVATM Bioactive restorative material while ACTIVATM Bioactive restorative material showed higher release of calcium compared to the light-cured resin-reinforced glass ionomer. There was no statistical difference in phosphorus release between the two tested materials. Phosphorus content was relatively similar in both groups
Issued also as CD
There are no comments on this title.