To compare the abrasion wear resistance and superficial roughness of different glass ionomer cements used as restorative materials, focusing on a new nanoparticulate material. Material and Method: Three glass ionomer cements were evaluated: Ketac Molar, Ketac N100 and Vitremer (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA), as well as the Filtek Z350 (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA). For each material were fabricated circular specimens (n=12), respecting the handling mode specified by the manufacturer, which were polished with sandpaper disks of decreasing grit. The wear was determined by the amount of mass (M) lost after brushing (10,000 cycles) and the roughness (Ra) using a surface roughness tester. The difference between the Minitial and Mfinal (ΔM) as well as beroughness of aesthetic restorative materials: an in vitro comparison. SADJ. 2001; 56(7): 316-20. 11. Yip HK, Peng D, Smales RJ. Effects of APF gel on the physical structure of compomers and glass ionomer cements. Oper. Dent. 2001; 26(3): 231-8. 12. Ma T, Johnson GH, Gordon GE. Effects of chemical disinfectants on the surface characteristics and color of denture resins. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 77(2): 197-204. 13. International organization for standardization. Technical specification 14569-1. Dental Materials – guidance on testing of wear resistance – PART I: wear by tooth brushing. Switzerland: ISO; 1999. 14. Bollen CML, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater.1997; 13(4): 258-9. 15. Kielbassa AM, Gillmann C, Zantner H, Meyer-Lueckel H, Hellwig E, Schulte-Mönting J. Profilometric and microradiographic studies on the effects of toothpaste and acidic gel abrasivity on sound and demineralized bovine dental enamel. Caries Res. 2005; 39(5): 380-6. 16. Tanoue N, Matsumara H, Atsuta M. Wear and surface roughness of current prosthetic composites after toothbrush/dentifrice abrasion. J Prosthet Dent. 2000; 84(1): 93-7. 17. Heath JR, Wilson HJ. Abrasion of restorative materials by toothpaste. J Oral Rehabil. 1976; 3(2): 121-38. 18. Frazier KB, Rueggeberg FA, Mettenburg DJ. Comparasion of wearresistance of class V restorative materials. J Esthet Dent. 1998; 10(6): 309-14. 19. Momoi Y, Hirosakil K, Kohmol A, McCabe JF. In vitro toothebrushdentifrrice abrasion of resin-modified glass ionomers. Dent Mater. 1997; 13(2): 82-8. 20. Turssi CP, Magalhães CS, Serra MC, Rodrigues Jr.AL. Surface roughness assessment of resin-based materials during brushing preceded by pHcycling simulations. Oper Dent. 2001; 26(6): 576-84. 21. Wang L, Cefaly DF, Dos Santos JL, Dos Santos JR, Lauris JR, Mondelli RF, et al. In vitro interactions between lactic acid solution and art glassionomer cements. J Appl Oral Sci. 2009; 17(4): 274-9. 22. Carvalho FG, Fucio SB, Paula AB, Correr GM, Sinhoreti MA, PuppinRontani RM. Child toothbrush abrasion effect on ionomeric materials. J Dent Child (Chic). 2008; 75(2): 112-6. 23. Coutinho E, Cardoso MV, De Munck J, Neves AA, Van Landuyt KL, Poitevin A, et al. Bonding effectiveness and interfacial characterization of a nano-filled resin-modified glass-ionomer. Dent Mater. 2009; 25(11): 1347-57. tween Rainitial and Rafinal (ΔRa) were also used for statistical analysis (α=0.05). Results: Except for the composite, significant loss of mass was observed for all glass ionomer cements and the ΔM was comparable for all of them. Significant increase in roughness was observed only for Vitremer and Ketac N100. At the end of the brushing cycle, just Vitremer presented surface roughness greater than the composite resin. Conclusion: All glass ionomer cements showed significant weight loss after 10,000 cycles of brushing. However, only Vitremer showed an increase of roughness greater than the Z350 resin, while the nanoparticulate cement Ketac N100 showed a smooth surface comparable to the composite.

Comparar a resistência à abrasão e a rugosidade superficial de diferentes cimentos de ionômero de vidro usados como materiais restauradores, com enfoque em um novo material nanoparticulado. Material e Método: Três cimentos ionoméricos foram avaliados: Ketac Molar, Ketac N100 e Vitremer (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, EUA), assim como o compósito Filtek Z 350 (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, EUA). Para cada material foram confeccionados espécimes circulares (n=12), respeitando o modo de manipulação especificado pelo fabricante, os quais foram polidos com discos de lixa de granulação decrescente. O desgaste foi determinado por meio da quantidade de massa (M) perdida após a escovação simulada (10.000 ciclos), e a rugosidade (Ra) por meio de um rugosímetro. Os valores resultantes da diferença entre a Minicial e Mfinal (ΔM), assim como entre a Rainicial e Rafinal (ΔRa), também foram calculados para a análise estatística (α=0,05). Resultados: Com exceção para a resina composta, perda significante de massa foi observada para todos os cimentos ionoméricos, sendo o ΔM comparável para todos eles. Aumento significante de rugosidade foi observado apenas para Vitremer e Ketac N100. Ao final do ciclo de escovação simulada, apenas Vitremer apresentou rugosidade superficial maior do que a resina composta. Conclusão: Todos os cimentos ionoméricos apresentaram perda de massa significante após 10.000 ciclos de escovação. Entretanto, apenas o Vitremer apresentou aumento de rugosidade superior ao da resina Z350, enquanto que o cimento nanoparticulado Ketac N100 apresentou lisura superficial comparável a esse compósito.