Home > Journals > Minerva Stomatologica > Past Issues > Minerva Stomatologica 2011 June;60(6) > Minerva Stomatologica 2011 June;60(6):297-302





A Journal on Dentistry and Maxillofacial Surgery

Official Journal of the Italian Society of Odontostomatology and Maxillofacial Surgery
Indexed/Abstracted in: CAB, EMBASE, Index to Dental Literature, PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Emerging Sources Citation Index




Minerva Stomatologica 2011 June;60(6):297-302

language: English

In vitro study on micro-hardness of resin-modified glass ionomers at different depths

Ugarte Núñez D. E. 1, Terossi De Godoi A. P. 2, De Biagi Freitas D. 2, Catirse A. B. C. E. 2

1 Pierre Fauchard Autonomous, University of Paraguay, Asunción, Paraguay;
2 Ribeirão Preto College of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil


AIM:It is very important to perform studies to evaluate micro-hardness and curation level at different depths to refine the clinical indications and orientations that the odontologist gives to the patients, helping to achieve more durable treatments when using resin-modified glass ionomers. This in vitro study evaluated knoop micro-hardness in 2 different brands of resin-modified glass ionomers: Ketac ™ N100 (M1) and Fuji II LC (M2).
METHODS: Tests were performed at three depths: surface (P1), 2 mm (P2) and 3 mm (P3). A total of 40 samples where made (20 of each type of resin), half of these measuring 5x2 mm and the other half with 5x3 mm. To evaluate micro-hardness at different depths, 24 hours after the manufacture of samples, tests where made on both top and bottom surfaces. These tests were performed using an HMV-200 Micro Hardness Tester (Shimadzu brand). For statistical analysis data were collected and used first for ANOVA variance analysis (P≤0.01) followed then by Tukey’s test.
RESULTS: It also shows that the effect is not significant for the interaction between material and depth. Micro-hardness on P1 (34.7) is statistically greater than with P2 (29.2) and P3 (29.0) and these last two are statistically equal between them. M1 (27.8) presented less micro-hardness than M2 (34.2).
CONCLUSION: Surface micro-hardness is greater than micro-hardness at other depths and M2 presented better results than M1.

top of page

Publication History

Cite this article as

Corresponding author e-mail