You are on page 1of 6

The official journal of the Australian Dental Association

Australian Dental Journal
Australian Dental Journal 2013; 58: 448–453 doi: 10.1111/adj.12122

Effect of G-Coat Plus on the mechanical properties of glass-ionomer cements
R Bagheri,* NA Taha,† MR Azar,* MF Burrow‡
*Department of Dental Materials, Biomaterial Research Centre, Faculty of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. †Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan. ‡Oral Diagnosis and Polyclinics, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Prince Philip Dental Hospital, Hong Kong SAR.

ABSTRACT
Background: Although various mechanical properties of tooth-coloured materials have been described, little data have been published on the effect of ageing and G-Coat Plus on the hardness and strength of the glass-ionomer cements (GICs). Methods: Specimens were prepared from one polyacid-modified resin composite (PAMRC; Freedom, SDI), one resinmodified glass-ionomer cement; (RM-GIC; Fuji II LC, GC), and one conventional glass-ionomer cement; (GIC; Fuji IX, GC). GIC and RM-GIC were tested both with and without applying G-Coat Plus (GC). Specimens were conditioned in 37 °C distilled water for either 24 hours, four and eight weeks. Half the specimens were subjected to a shear punch test using a universal testing machine; the remaining half was subjected to Vickers Hardness test. Results: Data analysis showed that the hardness and shear punch values were material dependent. The hardness and shear punch of the PAMRC was the highest and GIC the lowest. Applying the G-Coat Plus was associated with a significant decrease in the hardness of the materials but increase in the shear punch strength after four and eight weeks. Conclusions: The mechanical properties of the restorative materials were affected by applying G-Coat Plus and distilled water immersion over time. The PAMRC was significantly stronger and harder than the RM-GIC or GIC.
Keywords: G-Coat Plus, glass-ionomer cements, mechanical properties. Abbreviations and acronyms: ANOVA = analysis of variance; GIC = glass-ionomer cement; PAMRC = polyacid-modified resin composite; RM-GIC = resin-modified glass-ionomer cement; VHN = Vickers Hardness Number. (Accepted for publication 5 March 2013.)

INTRODUCTION Conventional glass-ionomer cements (GICs) are formed by an acid-base neutralization reaction between an aqueous polyalkenoic acid and an aluminosilicate glass powder, which results in a relatively brittle material compared to resin composite. Since the end of the 1980s, more developed GICs such as resin-modified glass-ionomer cements (RM-GICs) have become available. Stronger and less brittle hybrid materials have been produced by the addition of water-soluble polymers to create a light-curing GIC formulation.1 The aim of introducing RM-GIC was to maintain the desirable properties of GIC and overcome the disadvantages such as moisture sensitivity and poor early mechanical strength.2 In their simple form, RM-GICs are water-hardening cements with the addition of a hydrophilic monomer, 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA).3 A recently introduced tooth-coloured restorative material that claimed to have the benefits of the GICs
448

and resin composite filling materials is the polyacidmodified resin composite (PAMRC), commonly called ‘compomer’. PAMRCs were introduced in approximately 1994.4 Commercially, the term ‘compomer’ (composite-ionomer) is widely used to reflect its resin composite and glass-ionomer derivation. PAMRCs combine glass polyalkenoic components with polymerizable resin constituents such as dimethacrylates. PAMRCs do not have an auto-setting acid-base reaction as in GICs but rely on resin polymerization to create a ‘set’ functional restorative material.2 When selecting a material to restore teeth, one of the main considerations is its mechanical properties. A restorative material used to replace missing tooth structure needs to be strong enough to withstand the forces associated with mastication and other possible loading. Hardness and shear punch strength are two tests that can be used to evaluate the mechanical properties of a filling material. The material hardness can be defined as its resistance to surface indentation.5,6 The Vickers Hardness test is a method used
© 2013 Australian Dental Association

4 Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ (3.4) (1.0 Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ (4. and (3) the effect of a recently introduced resin surface coating (G-Coat Plus) on the hardness and shear punch strength of the GIC and RM-GIC.7 mm thick) were prepared for Freedom. The null hypotheses are that there is no difference among the materials.Mechanical properties of restorative materials for brittle materials6 in which a pyramidal indentation is made using a specified load and application time. 1500-.8 cB 7. Mean shear punch strength (MPa) and standard deviations (Æ) of the materials following times interval (n = 6) Materials Freedom Fuji II LCÀ Fuji II LC+ Fuji IXÀ Fuji IX+ aA aA 24 hours 47.3 27.6 cB 95.6 49. Means with the same upper-case letter in each row are not significantly different (p > 0.7) (0.1) (6. Materials Name Freedom Fuji II LC Fuji IX G-Coat Plus Manufacturer SDI.3) aB aA 8 weeks 77.2 Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ (6.0 mm diameter 9 1. 24 hours 87. Table 1. (2) the effect of ageing on the surface hardness and shear punch strength. Tokyo. Mean Vickers Hardness Number (VHN.5) (0. Australia). a total of 36 disc-shaped specimens for hardness testing (10.7 The shear punch test has been used to determine properties of clinical significance such as occlusal or incisal forces that occur during mastication.11 The objectives of the present study were to place GIC.adhesive light. reliable technique for assessing the mechanical properties of resin-based materials.9 aA 42. and the GIC and RM-GIC respectively (n = 6). and a relationship between these mechanical properties to material filler content. the resultant hardness number being independent of the applied load. Each specimen was washed in an ultrasonic bath between each grinding.7 cA 25.8) –Determines control group (not coated by G-Coat Plus).7) (0.0) (6. Tokyo. 18 and 72 disc-shaped specimens (10.4) –Determines control group (not coated by G-Coat Plus).2 40. The glass slabs were removed and the light-cured materials Table 3. +Determines treatment group (coated by G-Coat Plus).5) (2.2) (3. Japan GC Corporation. Tokyo.1 bB 28.0) aB bB 8 weeks 111.8 It has been used as a simple. each group was Table 2. All materials were placed in the appropriate plastic mould and pressed between two plastic matrix strips and glass slabs under hand pressure to extrude excess material.5) aB bB 4 weeks 66.56 Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ (2. 2000-grit silicon carbide papers.05). +Determines treatment group (coated by G-Coat Plus). SDI.cured protective coating Filler/resin type strontium fluoroaluminium silicate/urethane dimethacrylate based Aluminium-fluoro-silicateglass/Poly-HEMA Aluminium-fluoro-silicate glass Batch# 121314 1202221 1110191 © 2013 Australian Dental Association 449 .8 45.9 bB 76.5 mm thick) were prepared.2 dB 59.1) (2.05). MPa) and standard deviations (Æ) of the materials following times interval (n = 3 discs 3 5 indentation = 15) Materials Freedom Fuji II LCÀ Fuji II LC+ Fuji IXÀ Fuji IX+ aA bA cB dA dA were cured according to the manufacturers’ instructions on each side using an LED curing light with a wavelength range of 440–480 nm at an output of 1500 mW/cm2 (Radii plus LED.6) (2.4 cA 13.4 49.5 15. that the ageing does not affect mechanical properties.0 bA 31.05). For Freedom a total of 9 and for the GIC and RM-GIC.3) (7.5) (4. MATERIALS AND METHODS Specimen preparation The materials used in the study are listed in Table 1.2 Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ (5.7) (1.05).4 bA 43 cB 11.3 Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ (3.8) (3.8 15.2) (2.0) (1.7) (1. Means with the same lower-case letter in each column are not significantly different (p > 0.4) (1.5) (6.6) (3. Specimens were randomly divided into five groups for each test (Tables 2 and 3). Japan GC Corporation.3 bA 35.5 aA 40. and that the surface coating does not affect the mechanical properties of GICs.0 mm diameter 9 0. For shear punch testing. Japan Material type Polyacid-modified resin composite Resin-modified glass-ionomer cement Self-cure (conventional) glass-ionomer cement Nanofilled self. Means with the same lower-case letter in each column are not significantly different (p > 0.10.5) (5.9 Both hardness and shear punch strength of tooth-coloured materials have been evaluated to predict their durability.3) (1.3 cC 59.2 cB 8. Australia GC Corporation. Specimens were removed from the mould and excess material around the mould was removed by manual gentle wet grinding both sides of the specimens in a circular motion with a sequence of 1000-. Bayswater. filler size and silane coupling agent has also been demonstrated.0) (7.5) (0.6 80. VIC. RM-GIC and PAMRC in distilled water for up to eight weeks at 37 °C and determine: (1) the resultant surface hardness and shear punch strength. Vic.3 40.1) aA aA 4 weeks 47. Means with the same upper-case letter in each row are not significantly different (p > 0.

Zwick GmbH & Co. G-Coat Plus coated specimens showed an increase in 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Freedom 24 hours 4 weeks 8 weeks Shear Punch Strength (MPa) Fuji II LC - Fuji II LC + Fuji IX - Fuji IX + Fig. four and eight weeks. 2. Data analysis To evaluate the interaction between material and immersion time as well as the effect of G-Coat Plus in each of the two tests. four and eight weeks immersion in distilled water at 37 °C. but significantly greater than the GIC (p < 0. All materials showed a significantly higher shear punch value after eight weeks immersion in distilled water. two-way analysis variance (ANOVA) was carried out. Chicago. and the resulting value converted to MPa multiply by 9. Measurements of Vickers Hardness and shear punch strength were carried out as described below. G-Coat Plus was applied on the specimens in the coated group by placing a thin coat of G-Coat Plus on the top surface of the specimen with a microbrush. Shear punch strength The thickness of each specimen was measured with a digital micrometer. and tested after 24 hours. USA) (n = 3 discs 9 5 indentation = 15).2-mm diameter stainless steel rod was used to punch out a disc through the centre of each specimen at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. 1) and held in place by gently tightening the restraining screw.8/m2 9 10À6).05). Shear punch strength (MPa) was calculated using the following formula: load (N) Â punch circumference (mm) specimen thickness (mm) Vickers Hardness Each disc was subjected to five indentations with 35 lm apart across the specimen surface by applying a load of 300 g for 15 seconds using a Digital Hardness Tester (Buehler. The Vickers Hardness Number (VHN) was determined by dividing the load (kgf) by the surface area (mm2). The shear punch jig was aligned to the loading axis of the universal testing machine (Zwick/Roll Z020. 450 Fig. A Pearson Correlation test was also conducted to determine if a relationship could be observed between hardness and shear punch strength. RESULTS Shear punch strength The means and standard deviations are shown in Table 2 and Fig. A flat-ended 3. subdivided to three groups and conditioned in distilled water at 37 °C for 24 hours. Germany).807 (MPa = Kgf 9 9. To determine inter-material differences for each test. and the maximum load recorded. Specimens were stored. 2 Shear punch strength (MPa) versus time interval for all materials in distilled water. data were analysed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test at a significance level of 0. The base line strength for the PAMRC was slightly greater than the RM-GIC.05. positioned in the shear punch jig (Fig. 1 A schematic representation of the shear punch jig. then gently air blown for 5 seconds and lightcured for 20 seconds according to the manufacturer’s recommendation. © 2013 Australian Dental Association .R Bagheri et al. The water was changed weekly for each of the time periods.

11. The observed variation may also show a complex intrinsic change occurring within the materials as they continue to mature but also change due to absorption of water. which has been advocated for the prevention of specimen flexure during application of the force from the punch. at different time intervals was observed. Ageing in distilled water for most of the materials showed significantly lower VHN after four weeks but then an increase after eight weeks that remained lower than at baseline.052. the correlation was calculated at 0.11 In this study. diametral and compression testing.12 In the current study. Therefore. particularly in the shear punch test of uncoated Fuji II LC and in the microhardness of coated Fuji II LC. The shear punch value for the specimens with the coating agent was more than the uncoated group. storage in distilled water was associated with an increase in shear punch strength (Fig. the shear punch test is not particularly technique sensitive in terms of the quality of the circumference edges of the disc. regardless of time. The correlations were 0. Tukey’s test showed G-Coat Plus exhibited a significant decrease in the VHN of the RM-GIC after 24 hours and eight weeks (p < 0. The shear punch test was confirmed by Nomoto et al. A positive correlation between the hardness and inorganic filler has been previously shown. compressive and diametral tests are the most commonly used. The modified shear punch test jig (Fig. specimens were polished to obtain flat surfaces for uniform stress distribution around the punch circumference. differences in specimen quality and stress concentration during loading are common problems when comparing inter-laboratory test results.23 for each of the time periods respectively. 3.Mechanical properties of restorative materials shear punch strength for the RM-GIC and GIC (p < 0. © 2013 Australian Dental Association . the specimen was restrained during shear punch testing by a screw clamp over the top of the specimen. Although flexural. This outcome can be attributed to the type of inorganic fillers in the PAMRC and resin matrix. the hardness of the PAMRC was the highest and GIC the lowest. 3 Vickers Hardness Number (MPa) versus time interval for all materials in distilled water. These results may be related to the complexity of the stress distribution in a specimen during loading by the punch. A statistically significant increase in shear punch strength was observed for all materials as the time interval increased with the greatest increase observed after eight weeks immersion in distilled water (Table 2).. DISCUSSION Roydhouse8 introduced the shear punch test as a practical and reliable test for comparing dental cements. Vickers Hardness The means and standard deviations are shown in Table 3 and Fig.297. It is a possibility that the coating agent exerted some local control on the setting of the materials after four and eight weeks or reduced the effect of surface porosity and crack propagation. simplicity of specimen preparation has been mentioned as the main advantage of the shear punch test over the other tests. The Pearson Correlation test showed over each test period (24 hours.05) after four and eight weeks immersion respectively compared to the non-coated specimens. 1) introduced by Nomoto et al. The existence of undetectable voids will cause differences in the strengths observed. four and eight weeks) no correlation could be determined between shear punch strength and hardness. Coated specimens showed a significant increase after four weeks immersion in distilled water and even more after eight weeks. Irrespective of time.8 as well as the possibility of voids existing within the material that could not be detected prior to testing.13 A variation in results for some materials. Further study is needed to clarify and better understand what may be occurring in some of these materials. In contrast to flexural.11 as a suitable method for standard specification testing across a broad range of restorative materials. There was a significant difference between all materials at baseline VHN (p < 0.175 and 0. In this method. in contrast to the effect of ageing on the hardness of the tested materials.05). With respect to the material tested. In the present study. while it showed significant increase after four weeks immersion compared to that of 24 hours.14 resin-based materials that contain barium glass fillers showed 451 90 80 Vickers hardness Number (MPa) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Freedom 24 hours 4 weeks 8 weeks Fuji II LC - Fuji II LC + Fuji IX - Fuji IX + Fig. The rank order of increasing shear punch strength in this study (GIC<RMGIC<PAMRC) is supported by outcomes from previous studies.12. the PAMRC had a significantly greater hardness than RM-GIC and conventional GIC after 24 hours immersion in distilled water (Table 3).11 was used in the present study. À0. 2).05).

enhancing the initial strength.24 the effect of coating on the fracture toughness (KIc) of GICs. infiltration of G-Coat Plus gives internal protection against crack initiation and fills porosities. thus possibly creating a stronger material while it may not reinforce the surface of the material.23 It has been shown considerable time is needed for resin composite to become completely saturated by the water which may lead to a stabilization in hardness changes. e. The hardness after 24 hours immersion in distilled water showed a significantly greater value for the RM-GIC. Based on the manufacturer’s claim. They observed micromechanical interlocking between the G-Coat Plus and the GIC under SEM. it would be expected that the storage time will have an influence upon water sorption and consequently mechanical properties.16.e. Higher hardness values for the RM-GIC can probably be attributed to the polymerized resin component. This result is in agreement with the results of several other studies. Hence. was for the GIC coated before water contamination in comparison with uncoated GIC and GIC coated after water contamination. The authors speculated that G-Coat Plus is advantageous if used with Fuji IX GP Extra to decrease the early wear and increase its fracture strength. including water sorption by the resin component causing plasticization.15 which may reinforce or stiffen the whole cement by creating a polymer structure throughout the set cement. Therefore. Conventional GICs are formed by an acid-base reaction between an aqueous polyacrylic acid and an aluminosilicate glass powder. 26. A recent study25 also reported a similar finding. the hardness of all groups decreased as the time interval increased with the greatest decrease observed after four weeks (Fig. Ageing in distilled water affected the hardness and/or shear punch strength of all materials © 2013 Australian Dental Association .22 the water sorption is a process of slow diffusion. Since hardness is a surface property.26 Fuji IX GP Extra showed significant improvement in wear resistance and flexural strength 452 when G-Coat Plus was applied.27 The EQUIA system is Fuji IX GP Extra with G-Coat Plus.20 A decreased filler loading has been shown to result in greater water sorption. i.. both of which may increase fracture toughness and thus reinforcing and strengthening the GIC and RM-GIC. approximately twice that of the GIC. In addition. further work is needed to determine if the loss of this surface coating due to occlusal wear will affect clinical survival. Japan) in posterior teeth on occlusal and approximal restorations up to 24 months. in order to compare the effect of water on the hardness of these materials more objectively. Regarding the effect of storage in distilled water on the PAMRC and GIC. Their study concluded this system may be suitable for long-term temporary and small permanent restorations.26 Hardness is a surface phenomenon. anterior approximal or small occlusal restorations and deciduous teeth.g. the following conclusions were drawn and the three hypotheses were rejected.24 Its protective effect from extrinsic water may also allow complete maturation of the GIC reaction with delayed water exposure. The highest reported fracture strength. However. the use of G-Coat Plus seems to provide some benefit after the initial set (>24 hours).17 The reduction of hardness in the PAMRC due to ageing could be attributed to many factors. This study25 investigated the effect of G-Coat Plus on the fracture resistance of Fuji IX GP Extra after 14 days storage in distilled water. it is affected by water sorption. polyHEMA. Both the GICs and RM-GIC showed a significantly lower hardness after applying G-Coat Plus compared to the uncoated groups.R Bagheri et al. 3).1 MPa. The results of our previous study. This is an interesting result that may indicate the placement of coated RM-GIC restorations could be as successful as PAMRC for small restorations not exposed to a high degree of load. CONCLUSIONS Within the limitations of this study.18.19 Water sorption is a complex phenomenon and is dependent on the matrix resin.21 As water is a poor solvent of dental composites. revealed that coating with G-Coat Plus increased the KIc of GIC significantly while it did not affect that of RM-GIC. Therefore. significantly lower surface hardness than composites containing zirconia/silica filler particles. and the properties of the interface between the matrix and the filler.25 According to the findings of Bonifacio et al. while fracture toughness is an intrinsic characteristic of a material related to energy needed for cracks to propagate and how crack propagation may be prevented. further longterm studies are needed. The results of the present study in the context of clinical usage show that all the GICs gain strength some time after the initial set. It would also seem that the RM-GIC tested is approaching strengths of the PAMRC used. which results in a relatively brittle material in comparison to RM-GICs. The self-adhesive coating bonds to GIC and provides a lamination effect that has been shown to increase the fracture toughness. the median age of the restorations was only 24 months and they failed to use a comparison material. the longer term strength results lend some support to the clinical study that GIC could possibly be used in small load bearing restorations. However. the filler. A recent clinical study trialled the use of the EQUIA system (GC Corp.

Watson TF. 23. the ranking was consistent with the clinical recommendation for the materials. Aust Dent J 1996. Gosz M. Ikejima I. Dent Mater 2011. Dent Mater 2003. Say EC. Peters MC. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater 2007. St.40:12–23. 17. Okuno O.80:226–235. Fracture toughness of resin-modified glass ionomers. For both test results.3:425–429.23:142–146. Shear punch strength and flexural strength of model composites with varying filler volume fraction. Effect of microfiller fraction and silane treatment on resin composite properties. Andersson F. Hiller K-A. Subsurface deformation associated with hardness measurements of composites. 3. Drummond JL. Effect of degree of conversion. Wassell RW. Am J Dent 2011. McCabe JF. Civelek A. Wataha JC.29:35–41. it was effective on the shear punch strength of those materials. 24. and filler/matrix coupling. J Dent Res 1970. Phillips’ Science of Dental Materials. Makinson OF. Anusavice KJ. 15. McCabe JF. particle size and silanation. 10. 7. Nicholson JW.10:291–294. 25. In general. Mount GJ. 2000. Wilson AD. St. Mostovoy S. In this study. Nobecourt A.Mechanical properties of restorative materials to varying degrees. 6.41:118–223. 20. Quintessence Int 1994. McCabe JF. Address for correspondence: Rafat Bagheri Ghasrodasht. Coating glass-ionomer cements with a nanofilled resin. Coated Fuji II LC and Fuji IX showed significantly higher shear punch strength than uncoated groups after four and eight weeks immersion in distilled water while the coated specimens of the 24-hour group exhibited lower values than the uncoated groups. Bagheri R. Werner A. Beatty MW. Am J Dent 1995. most of the materials showed an increase in the shear punch strength and decrease in the VHN after immersion in distilled water.42:465–472. 22.10:5–10. Proposed nomenclature for glass-ionomer dental cements and related materials. J Biomed Mater Res 1998. Effect of cyclic loading and environmental aging on the fracture toughness of dental resin composite. 12. Resin-modified glass-ionomer cements. 9. Condon JR. Ray S. Muncy MV. Suitability of a shear punch test for dental restorative materials. Carrick TE. Wear and microhardness of different resin composite materials. J Biomed Mater Res 1998. Kleverlaan CJ. Burrow MF. the PAMRC was significantly stronger and harder than the RM-GIC. Int J Prosthodont 1989. 13. Lohbauer U. However. et al. Influence of pH and storage time on the sorption and solubility behavior of three composite resin materials. Nomoto R. Azar MR.17:415–421. 21. in comparison with the baseline. Dent Mater 2001. Tyas MJ. Mante M. Walls AW. Terselius B. Sidhu SK. Kramer N. 8. The effect of water on polymer matrix and composite wear. Bonifacio CC. Momoi Y. 27.176:91–96. Developments in glass-ionomer cements.9:325–331. 18. Nomoto R.25:587–589. et al.87:642–649. J Dent 2001. Louis: Mosby. Powers JM. Saleh N. Dent Mater 1992. Siedschlag G. Ferracane JL.27:1031–1037. Br Dent J 1994. Ghomabad Street Department of Dental Materials Faculty of Dentistry Shiraz University of Medical Sciences Shiraz Iran Email: bagherir@unimelb. Am J Dent 2010.8:145–148. Craig RG.28:628–634. McCabe JF. filler volume. Hardness of model dental composites: the effect of filler volume fraction and silanation. 2. 26. Resin-modified glass ionomer materials. J Prosthet Dent 2002. The strength of autocured and light-cured materials: the shear punch test. REFERENCES 1. however. Am J Dent 1995.2:438–446. Laboratory data may provide an insight into clinical performance. 5.au © 2013 Australian Dental Association 453 . Tyas MJ. Dent Mater 1993. 4. Sarrett DC. McLean JW. J Mater Sci Mater Med 1999. Moore BK. 19. The effect of time and G-Coat Plus was material dependent. It must be emphasized that the results of the present study are valid for the laboratory conditions used. Comparison of the effect of storage media on hardness and shear punch strength of toothcolored restorative materials. Softening patterns of post-cure heat-treated dental composites. Hygroscopic expansion of resin based composites during 6 months of water storage. Burrow MF. Berge HX. Wilson AD. Karlsson S. 14. Am J Dent 2007.70:471–477. 16. The effect of filler loading and morphology on the mechanical properties of contemporary composites.8:218–223. Wassell RW. In vitro aging of dental composites in water. Friedl K. 2003. Oper Dent 2003. Dent Mater 1994. Kim KH. Kovarik RE. Mante F. Wilson AD.edu. Roydhouse RH. Bagheri R.24:124–128. Punch-shear test for dental purposes. Ersoy M. Friedl K-H. 11. McCabe JF. A status report. Int J Prosthodont 1990.19:206– 211. Elgh U. The effect of aging on the fracture toughness of aesthetic restorative materials. surface coating of GIC and RM-GIC using G-Coat Plus was not found to be effective in increasing the Vickers Hardness of the materials. Ravindranath V.8:59–67.20:329–334. Louis: Mosby. Strength and wear resistance of a dental glass-ionomer cement with a novel nanofilled resin coating. Guleryuz C. which in turn was significantly stronger and harder than the conventional GIC. Dental materials properties and manipulation. Ortengren U. Acta Odontol Scand 2012. Ong JL. a direct relationship between laboratory and clinical performance cannot always be assumed. Clinical performance of a new glass ionomer based restoration system: a retrospective study. Swartz ML. De Santiago E.49:131–136.