Abstract
This study investigates the powder/liquid ratios of a glass-ionomer restorative (ChemFil II, Dentsply) mixed in clinical practice. Twenty-two dental surgery assistants (11 from general practice; 11 from a dental hospital) mixed this cement as they would for clinical use. Samples were taken of three mixes from each assistant and the powder/liquid ratios were derived from weight loss on dehydration. A wide range of ratios were obtained, but in no case was the manufacturer's recommended ratio of 6.8:1 achieved. The consistency measured in accordance with BS 6039 showed the cement at 6.8:1 to be less fluid than the requirements of the standard and other glass-ionomer restoratives. When tested at the mean ratio used in practice, 5.0:1, the consistency complied with BS 6039, but the compressive and diametral strengths did not, being about half the values found at 6.8:1. It was concluded that this restorative was often mixed in practice at much lower powder/liquid ratios than that recommended by the manufacturer and that this would impair the cement's mechanical properties
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Billington, R., Williams, J. & Pearson, G. Variation in powder/liquid ratio of a restorative glass-ionomer cement used in dental practice. Br Dent J 169, 164–167 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4807311
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4807311
This article is cited by
-
Survival rate of primary molar restorations is not influenced by hand mixed or encapsulated GIC: 24Â months RCT
BMC Oral Health (2021)
-
Antimicrobial properties, compressive strength and fluoride release capacity of essential oil-modified glass ionomer cements—an in vitro study
Clinical Oral Investigations (2021)
-
Physical property investigation of contemporary glass ionomer and resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials
Clinical Oral Investigations (2019)
-
The advantages and disadvantages of running a clinical trial in general practices
British Dental Journal (2004)