Metal-reinforced anterior tooth replacement using acid-etch-composite resin technique

1980 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 408-412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Nathanson ◽  
Kambiz Moin
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Anterior Tooth ◽  
Tooth Replacement ◽  
Acid Etch

scholarly journals Immediate anterior tooth replacement by using an esthetic fixed bridge: A case report

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 100109
Author(s):  
Muhammad Ikbal ◽  
Acing Habibie Mude ◽  
Irfan Dammar ◽  
Nisrina Ekayani
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Anterior Tooth ◽  
Tooth Replacement

Composite-composite Adhesion as a Function of Adhesive-composite Material and Surface Treatment

2019 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 348-354
Author(s):  
AV Ritter ◽  
TA Sulaiman ◽  
A Altitinchi ◽  
E Bair ◽  
F Baratto-Filho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Dwell Time ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Substrate Material ◽  
Interfacial Fracture Toughness ◽  
Composite Repair ◽  
Diamond Bur ◽  
Acid Etch ◽  
Post Hoc ◽  
Adhesive Type

SUMMARY Objective: To evaluate the composite-to-composite repair interfacial fracture toughness (iFT) as a function of adhesive and composite repair material. Methods and Materials: Beam-shaped composite specimens (21×4×3±0.2 mm) were prepared for each substrate material (Filtek Supreme Ultra [FSU] or Clearfil Majesty ES-2 [CME]) and artificially aged for 50,000 thermocycles (5-55°C, 20-second dwell time). Aged specimens were sectioned in half, and the resulting hemispecimens were randomly assigned to one of the different repair methods (n=10) based on the following variables: type of substrate composite (FSU or CME), acid etch (yes or no), adhesive type (Scotchbond Universal or Clearfil SE Bond 2), and type of repair composite (FSU or CME). The repair surface was prepared with a course diamond bur (Midwest #471271). When used, 37% phosphoric acid was applied for 20 seconds, rinsed, and dried. All adhesives and composites were applied according to manufacturers' instructions. After postrepair storage (100% humidity, 37°C, 24 hours), iFT was measured and expressed as MPa. Data were analyzed for statistical significance using a three-way analysis of variance and Tukey post hoc tests (α=0.05). Results: iFT values ranged from 0.64 ± 0.19 MPa to 1.28 ± 013 MPa. Significantly higher iFT values were achieved when FSU was used as the repair composite resin regardless of the substrate composite resin (p<0.001). Clearfil SE Bond 2 adhesive was associated with significantly higher iFT values for FSU substrate (p<0.001). The etching procedure had no significant effect on the iFT values of the repair procedures (p>0.05). Conclusions: Composite repair strength is adhesive and composite dependent. Repair strength appears to be higher when FSU is the repair composite regardless of the adhesive used.

scholarly journals 10-year Follow-up of Natural Crown Bonding After Tooth Fracture

2014 ◽  
Vol 39 (5) ◽  
pp. 469-472 ◽  
Author(s):  
EG Reston ◽  
LA Reichert ◽  
AL Stefanello Busato ◽  
RPR Bueno ◽  
J Zettermann
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Case ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Anterior Tooth ◽  
Periodontal Health ◽  
Tooth Fracture

SUMMARY The aim of this article is to discuss relevant considerations about crown bonding and describe a clinical case in which a tooth fragment and direct composite resin were used to successfully restore a fractured anterior tooth. Clinical examinations showed good esthetics and periodontal health after 10 years of follow-up.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document