COMMENTARY. early hardness of self-adhesive resin cements cured under indirect resin composite restorations

Background. Adhesive resin is increasingly used as a modeling liquid for composite. Based on previous studies, elution of some components from the composite mass negatively affects the oral tissues. Since few studies have focused on the effect of adhesive resin on composite mass, this study aimed to investigate the effect of dental adhesion factors as modeling liquid on the elution of substances from composite restorations. Materials and Methods. Sixty-four composite specimens (6 × 2 mm diameter × height) were prepared in four groups (n = 16) by using a Teflon ring. Composite mass was incrementally applied in four layers (0.5 mm). The control group contained no material between the layers, but other groups had one of the single bond, SE bond, and wetting resin adhesives between the layers. Specimens were immersed in distilled water and methanol. The amount of released triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA), urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA), and camphorquinone (CQ) was monitored by gas chromatography after 24 hours and 7 days. Data were analyzed with SPSS software through Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U tests (α = 0.05). Results. The highest rate of released TEGDMA comonomer was seen in the wetting resin group in the water medium. The highest rate of released UDMA monomer was seen in SE bond and wetting resin groups in the methanol medium after 24 hours. The highest amount of released CQ in the methanol medium was observed in the SE bond group after 7 days. Conclusion. Single bond adhesive can be used as modeling liquid since it has no significant effect on the elution of components from composite mass. Whereas, wetting resin and SE bond adhesives are not suitable to be used as modeling liquid due to the high amounts of released TEGDMA and UDMA.

Download Full-text

Effect of Surface Treatment on Microtensile and Micromorphological Patterns of Self-Adhesive Resin Cements/Indirect Resin Composite Restoration Interface: A literature review

Mansoura Journal of Dentistry ◽

10.21608/mjd.2016.201764 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 3 (10) ◽

pp. 49-64

Keyword(s):

Literature Review ◽

Surface Treatment ◽

Resin Composite ◽

Resin Cements ◽

Adhesive Resin ◽

Effect Of Surface ◽

Composite Restoration

Download Full-text

Microleakage of Posterior Composite Restorations Lined with Self-adhesive Resin Cements

Operative Dentistry ◽

10.2341/09-189-l ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 35 (5) ◽

pp. 556-563 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

M. Al-Saleh ◽

O. El-Mowafy ◽

L. Tam ◽

A. Fenton

Keyword(s):

Clinical Relevance ◽

Class Ii ◽

Resin Cements ◽

Adhesive Resin ◽

Composite Restorations

Clinical Relevance Two self-adhesive resin cements resulted in minimal microleakage scores when used as liners in Class II composite restorations.

Download Full-text

Durability of the adhesive cementation to the dentin substract

RGO - Revista Gaúcha de Odontologia ◽

10.1590/1981-863720160002000022994 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 64 (2) ◽

pp. 132-139

Author(s):

Rodivan BRAZ ◽

Márcia de Almeida DURÃO ◽

Gabriela Luna Santana GOMES ◽

Fabio Barbosa DE SOUZA ◽

Eliane Alves LIMA

Keyword(s):

Resin Composite ◽

Microtensile Bond Strength ◽

Resin Cements ◽

Adhesive Resin ◽

Mean Values ◽

Adhesive Cementation ◽

Pre Treatment ◽

One Year ◽

The One

ABSTRACT Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate, in vitro, the union stability of resin cements to the dental substract through microtensile bond strength (µTBS) analysis and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Methods Fifty-four third human molars, stored in water for a short (24 hours) and long period of time (1 year) presented a flat oclusal superficial dentin. The teeth were distributed in six different groups: G1- Panavia F2.0/Kuraray; G2- RelyXUnicem/3M ESPE; G3- G-Cem/GC; G4- Biscem/ Bisco; G5- Panavia F2.0/Kuraray without pre-treatment and G6- Multilink Sprint/Ivoclar-Vivadent which were adhered to its respective indirect resin composite restoration, (G1- Clearfil AP-X/Kuraray; G2- Filtek Z350/3M ESPE; G3- Gradia Direct X(tm)/GC; G4- Aelite(tm)/ Bisco; G5- Clearfil AP-X/Kuraray; G6- Tetric Ceram/ Ivoclar-Vivadent). The resin blocks were cemented and the sticks were obtained by tooth, with an area of adhesive interface of 0,8mm² (±0,2). Results The mean values, submitted to Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests (α = 5%) were in MPa after 24 hours: G1 = 9.66 (A), G2 = 13.37 (A); G3 = 15.89 (A); G5 = 4.18 (B); G6 = 11.01 (A) and after 1 year: G1 = 9.75 (A), G2 = 11.73 (A); G3 = 20.10 (B); G5 = 6.80 (A); G6 = 21.09 (B). All G4 group presented pretest failures. Conclusion During the one year period, with the exception of BisCem, the self-adhesive resin cements were a favorable alternative for the adhesive cementation, standing out among these, the G-Cem and Multilink Sprint.

Download Full-text