scholarly journals Influence of adhesive system and bevel preparation on fracture strength of teeth restored with composite resin

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 327-331 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fábio Herrmann Coelho-de-Souza ◽  
Analice da Cunha Rocha ◽  
Alessandro Rubini ◽  
Celso Afonso Klein-Júnior ◽  
Flávio Fernando Demarco
Keyword(s):  
Fracture Strength ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Butt Joint ◽  
Fracture Pattern ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Exact Test ◽  
Universal Testing

The aim of this study was to evaluate the fracture strength of teeth with different cavosurface margin cavity preparations and restored with composite resin and different adhesive systems. Eighty premolars were randomly divided in 8 groups, as follow: G1- sound teeth; G2- MOD preparation (no restoration); G3- Adper Single Bond without bevel preparation (butt joint); G4- Adper Single Bond with bevel preparation; G5- Adper Single Bond with chamfer preparation; G6- Clearfil SE Bond without bevel (butt joint); G7- Clearfil SE Bond with bevel preparation; G8- Clearfil SE Bond with chamfer preparation. The adhesive systems were applied according to manufacturers’ instructions. Composite resin (Filtek Z250) was incrementally placed in all cavities. After 24 h, the specimens were tested in a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Data were analyzed statistically by ANOVA and Tukey’s test (fracture strength) and Fisher’s exact test (fracture pattern). The confidence level was set at 95% for all tests. Prepared and non-restored teeth showed the worst performance and G4 exhibited the highest fracture strength among all groups (p<0.05). In conclusion, all restorative treatments were able to recover the fracture strength of non-restored teeth to levels similar to those of sound teeth. Using a total-etch adhesive system with bevel preparation significantly improved the resistance to fracture.

scholarly journals Effect of Different Bonding Strategies on Adhesion to Deep and Superficial Permanent Dentin

2010 ◽  
Vol 04 (02) ◽  
pp. 110-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael Eduardo Fernandes Pegado ◽  
Flávia Lucisano Botelho do Amaral ◽  
Flávia Martão Flório ◽  
Roberta Tarkany Basting
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Universal Testing ◽  
One Step ◽  
The One

Objectives: To evaluate the effect of different bonding strategies on the microtensile bond strength to deep and superficial permanent dentin.Methods: Forty-eight teeth were randomly flattened according to the dentin depth: superficial dentin (SD) and deep dentin (DD). Subsequently, three adhesive systems were applied (n=8): an etchand- rinse (Adper Single Bond 2 - SB), a “mild” two-step self-etching (Clearfil SE Bond - SE) and a one-step self-etching adhesive system (Futurabond – FB). Each specimen was restored with a composite resin and sectioned into 1.0-mm2 thick slabs. After 24 hours, resin-dentin sticks were submitted to tensile stress in a universal testing machine (0.5 mm/min). Data were submitted to two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test at a level of 0.05%.Results: Superficial dentin showed the highest microtensile bond strength values, which differed statistically from those obtained in the deep dentin, irrespective of the adhesive system used. FB yielded the highest bond strength values, which were statistically similar to the bond strength values of SE, but statistically different from those obtained when the SB adhesive was used.Conclusions: Bond strength obtained in superficial dentin was significantly higher than in deep dentin, for all adhesive systems tested. Adhesion was affected by the different bonding strategies: the one-step, low pH, acetone-based self-etching adhesive promoted the higher bond strength values, which were statistically similar to those obtained with the two-step, water-based self-etching adhesive. (Eur J Dent 2010;4:110-117)

scholarly journals Bond strength to dentin of total-etch and self-etch adhesive systems

2014 ◽  
Vol 62 (4) ◽  
pp. 365-370 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ricardo Alves dos SANTOS ◽  
Eliane Alves de LIMA ◽  
Mônica Maria de Albuquerque PONTES ◽  
Alexandre Batista Lopes do NASCIMENTO ◽  
Marcos Antônio Japiassú Resende MONTES ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Healthy Human ◽  
Universal Testing ◽  
Stereo Microscope ◽  
Diamond Disc ◽  
Self Etch

OBJECTIVE: To assess the bond strength to dentin of the Single Bond (3M ESPE) and XP Bond (Dentsply) total-etch and Adper SE Plus (3M ESPE) self-etch adhesive systems. METHODS: Fifteen healthy human third molars were randomly allocated across three different groups of five teeth each according to the adhesive system. The occlusal portion of each tooth was removed under refrigeration using a flexible diamond disc (EXTEC, Enfield, CT, USA) down to an area of dentin that did not reveal enamel, as confirmed under a 40X stereo microscope (Ramsor, São Paulo, Brazil). A standardized smear layer was created with #600 grit silicon-carbide paper. The adhesive systems were applied as per manufacturer recommendations, with the exception of the Adper SE Plus system, which was triple-polymerized. Composite resin blocks (5 mm) were placed on the dentin surface. The specimens were stored in distilled water for 24 hours at 37ºC. Using a flexible diamond disc (EXTEC, Enfield, CT, USA), toothpick-like specimens with an adhesive area of less than 1 mm² were obtained. A microtensile bond test was then carried out using a universal testing machine (KRATOS) with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's test were used for comparisons. RESULTS: The bond strength values obtained with each adhesive system were as follows: XP Bond, 96.24 MPa; Adper Single Bond, 72.39 MPa; Adper SE Plus, 49.91 MPa. CONCLUSION: In terms of bond strength to dentin, conventional adhesives outperform self-etching systems.

scholarly journals Fracture Resistance of Premolars Restored by Various Types and Placement Techniques of Resin Composites

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Horieh Moosavi ◽  
Mahsa Zeynali ◽  
Zahra Hosseini Pour
Keyword(s):  
Fracture Resistance ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Resin Composites ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Insertion Technique ◽  
Steel Sphere ◽  
Placement Method ◽  
Universal Testing

To verify the fracture resistance of premolars with mesioocclusodistal preparations restored by different resin composites and placement techniques. Sixty premolars were randomly divided into two groups based on type of composite resin: Filtek P60 or Nulite F, and then each group was separated into three subgroups: bulk, centripetal, and fiber insert according to the type of placement method (n=10). Single-bond adhesive system was used as composite bonding according to the manufacturer's instructions. Specimens were restored in Groups 1, 2, and 3 with Filtek P60 and in Groups 4, 5, and 6 with Nulite F. After being stored 24 hours at37∘C, a 4 mm diameter steel sphere in a universal testing machine was applied on tooth buccal and lingual cusps at a cross-head speed of 5 mm/min until fracture occurred. Groups 3 and 6 showed higher fracture resistance than Groups 1, 2, 4, and 5. Among the placement techniques, the fiber insert method had a significant effect, but the type of composite was ineffective. The insertion technique in contrast to the type of material had a significant influence on the fracture resistance of premolar teeth.

scholarly journals Tensile bond strength of different adhesive systems to enamel and dentin

2007 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 124-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wanessa Christine Souza-Zaroni ◽  
Letícia Caliento Seixas ◽  
Juliane Cristina Ciccone-Nogueira ◽  
Daniela Thomazatti Chimello ◽  
Regina Guenka Palma-Dibb
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Analysis ◽  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Tensile Bond Strength ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Substrate Type ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Universal Testing

The aim of this study was to assess the tensile bond strength of four adhesive systems to enamel and dentin: Clearfil Liner Bond 2V - C, Prime&Bond NT/NRC - PB, Single Bond - SB and All Bond 2 -AB. For such purpose, 40 sound human molars were selected. Crowns were bisected in a mesiodistal direction and each half was ground until flat enamel (E) or dentin (D) surfaces were obtained. A total of 80 specimens were randomly assigned to 4 groups (n=20, 10 in enamel and 10 in dentin). After surface treatment, a composite resin (Z250; 3M) cone was prepared using a split Teflon® matrix. Bond strength was tested in an universal testing machine (0.5 mm/min). Bond strength means in MPa were: C - E: 18.66 (±2.67) and D: 21.62 (±5.29); PB - E: 18.13 (±2.96) and D: 3.19 (±1.40); SB - E: 20.06 (±6.11) and D: 16.95 (±2.57); AB - E: 18.20 (±3.94) and D: 15.94 (±4.72). Statistical analysis of data by two-way ANOVA showed that C presented the best results followed by SB. In conclusion, among the tested materials, Clearfil Liner Bond 2V self-etching primer adhesive syetem had the best performance. The substrate type influenced bond strength, being higher to enamel.

scholarly journals Influence of pH of different adhesive systems on the polymerization of a chemically cured composite resin

2005 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 107-111 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eduardo Batista Franco ◽  
Lawrence Gonzaga Lopes ◽  
Paulo Henrique Perlatti D'Alpino ◽  
José Carlos Pereira
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Adhesive Layer ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Steel Matrix ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Influence Of Ph

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of pH of different adhesive systems on the polymerization of a chemically cured composite resin (Adaptic - AD), by means of tensile bond strength testing. The adhesive systems tested were: ARM, Prime & Bond 2.1 (PB), Scotchbond Multi Purpose (SMP) and Single Bond (SB). Bond strength at the resin/adhesive system/resin interface was assessed. Five groups (n=5) were formed, according to following configuration: G1: AD/ARM/AD; G2: AD/PB/AD; G3: AD/SMP/AD; G4: AD/SB/AD; G5: AD/AD (no adhesive). A two-mold stainless steel matrix with a cone-shaped opening (1-mm-thick; 4 mm in diameter) was used to obtain resin discs. AD resin was inserted into the first mold, left-self curing and an adhesive layer was applied onto resin surface and light-cured. The second mold was assembled over the first and was filled with the resin. After 10 min, this setting was loaded in tension in a universal testing machine running at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Data were submitted to one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (p<0.05). Bond strength means (kgf) were: G1: 15.23 ± 4.1; G2: 0.00 ± 0.0; G3: 16.96 ± 2.4; G4: 10.08 ± 2.7; G5: 15.44 ± 0.9. There were statistically significant differences (p<0.05) between G2-G1; G2-G3; G2-G4; G4-G1; G4-G3. The systems with the lowest pHs (PB and SB) yielded the lowest bond strength. The findings of this in vitro study demostrates that the pH of adhesive systems influences the polymerization and bond strength of chemically cured resin materials. The low pH simplified adhesive systems showed distinct degrees of incompatibility with the chemically cured resin, when compared to the conventional adhesive systems.

scholarly journals Aplikasi klorheksidin glukonat 2%pada dentin tidak mempengaruhi kuat rekat geserkomposit resinyangmenggunakansistem adesif self etch (2% Chlorhexidine gluconate application on dentine does not affect bond strength of resin composite using self etch adhesive system)

2014 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 7
Author(s):  
Dewi Puspitasari ◽  
Andi Soufyan ◽  
Ellyza Herda
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Chlorhexidine Gluconate ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Group I ◽  
Self Etch

Composite resin is a widely used aesthetic restoration. The restoration can fail due to secondary caries. Chlorhexidinegluconate 2% is used as a cavity disinfectant to eliminate microorganisms on the prepared cavity and to prevent thesecondary caries. The purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of chlorhexidine gluconate 2% to the bondstrength of composite resin with self etch system adhesive on dentine. Sixteen specimens of buccal dentine of premolarscrown are divided into 2 different groups. Group I: Clearfil SE Bond self-etch primer was applied for 20 seconds,Clearfil SE Bond bonding was applied for 5 seconds and polymerized for 10 seconds. Composite resin was constructedincrementally and polymerized for 20 seconds. Group II: prior to self etch primer application as in group I,chlorhexidine gluconate 2% was applied for 15 seconds. Shear bond strength was tested using Testing machine andanalyzed with unpaired T test. The highest shear bond strength was obtained by applying chlorhexidine gluconate 2%.The study concludes that chlorhexidine gluconate 2% application to dentine did not affect significantly to the bondstrength composite resin using self etch adhesive systems.

scholarly journals Effect of Metalloproteinase Inhibitors on the Microtensile Bond Strength of Composite Resin to Er:YAG Laser-Irradiated Dentin

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 442-445 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beatriz Carlos Correa ◽  
Rodrigo Galo ◽  
Camila Scatena ◽  
Maria Cristina Borsatto ◽  
Aloísio Oro Spazzin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Er:Yag Laser ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Fracture Pattern ◽  
Chemical Degradation ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Cross Sectional

Abstract This study evaluated the effect of matrix metalloproteinase (MMP) inhibitors - 2% (CHX) and sodium fluoride (NaF) (5000 ppm) - on microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of composite resin to Er:YAG laser-irradiated dentin after chemical degradation of the bond interface. The occlusal surface of forty sound human molars was removed exposing the dentin surface (n=10), which was polished, irradiated with Er:YAG laser, acid etched and dried. Twenty specimens were rewetted with 2% CHX (control group) and 20 were rewetted with NaF (5000 ppm). The adhesive system was applied and a 4-mm-high plateau of light-cured composite resin was built up. Resin-dentin sticks were obtained with a rectangular cross-sectional area (0.8-1 mm2) and were either stored in water at 37 ?#61616;C for 24 h or submitted to chemical degradation. For chemical degradation, they were immersed in 10% NaOCl aqueous solution for 5 h and rinsed in water for 1 h. The sticks were submitted to microtensile test in a mechanical testing machine at 0.5 mm/min until failure. Fracture pattern was analyzed using SEM. μTBS values were calculated in MPa and submitted to analysis of variance ANOVA (α=0.05). The variance analysis showed that the 'MMP inhibitor' and 'degradation' factors (p=0.214 and p=0.093, respectively) and interaction between the factors were not statistically significant (p=0.143). Mixed failure predominated in all groups. In conclusion, the 2% CHX and NaF 5000 ppm presented similar μTBS of composite resin to laser-irradiated dentin before and after chemical degradation

scholarly journals Bond Strength of Adhesive Systems with Different Solvents to Dry and Wet Dentin

2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daphne Câmara Barcellos ◽  
Carlos Rocha Gomes Torres ◽  
Melissa Aline da Silva ◽  
Patrícia Maria Rangel ◽  
Clovis Pagani
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Universal Testing Machine ◽  
Universal Testing ◽  
Microtensile Test ◽  
Adhesive Factor

ABSTRACT Aim This study evaluates bond strength between dentin and composite using adhesives with different solvents to dry and wet dentin. Materials and methods Ninety bovine incisors were used; the vestibular surfaces were worn by the exposure of an area with a diameter of 4 mm of dentin. The specimens were divided into 6 groups, according to the type of adhesive used and hydratation stals: Group SB-wet: Single Bond 2 in wet dentin, Group SBdry: Single Bond 2 in dry dentin, Group SL-wet: Solobond M in wet dentin, Group SL-dry: Solobond M in dentin dry. Group XPwet: XP Bond in wet dentin, Group XP-dry: XP Bond in dentin dry. They were cut to obtain specimens in the shape of stick with 1 × 1 mm and subjected to microtensile test in universal testing machine with a cross speed of 1mm/min. The data were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey's tests (5%). Results ANOVA showed significant differences for surface treatment and interaction, but no difference was found for adhesive factor. The Tukey's test showed that the samples with wet dentin shown higher values of bond strength. Conclusion The adhesive did not influence in the bond strength. The groups with wet dentin showed higher values of bond strength than groups with dry dentin. How to cite this article Silva MA, Rangel PM, Barcellos DC, Pagani C, Torres CRG. Bond Strength of Adhesive Systems with Different Solvents to Dry and Wet Dentin. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013;14(1):9-13.

scholarly journals Tooth structure and fracture strength of cavities

2007 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 134-138 ◽  
Author(s):  
José Mondelli ◽  
Fábio Sene ◽  
Renata Pereira Ramos ◽  
Ana Raquel Benetti
Keyword(s):  
Mass Loss ◽  
Fracture Strength ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Cavity Preparation ◽  
Tooth Structure ◽  
Universal Testing ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Before And After

This study evaluated, in vitro, the loss of tooth substance after cavity preparation for direct and indirect restorations and its relationship with fracture strength of the prepared teeth. Sixty sound human maxillary first premolars were assigned to 6 groups (n=10). MOD direct composite cavities (Groups I, II and III) and indirect inlay cavities (Groups IV, V and VI) were prepared maintaining standardized dimensions: 2-mm deep pulpal floors, 1.5-mm wide gingival walls and 2-mm high axial walls. Buccolingual width of the occlusal box was established at 1/4 (Groups I and IV), 1/3 (Groups II and V) or 1/2 (Groups III and VI) of the intercuspal distance. Teeth were weighed (digital balance accurate to 0.001 g) before and after preparation to record tooth substance mass lost during cavity preparation. The prepared teeth were submitted to occlusal loading to determine their fracture strength using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey test (alpha= 0.05). 1/4-inlay cavities had higher percent mean mass loss (9.71%) than composite resin cavities with the same width (7.07%). 1/3-inlay preparations also produced higher percent mean mass loss (13.91%) than composite resin preparations with the same width (10.02%). 1/2-inlay cavities had 21.34% of mass loss versus 16.19% for the 1/2-composite resin cavities. Fracture strength means (in kgf) were: GI = 187.65; GII = 143.62; GIII = 74.10; GIV = 164.22; GV = 101.92; GVI = 50.35. Statistically significant difference (p<0.05) were observed between Groups I and IV, II and V, III and VI. Higher tooth structure loss and lower fracture strength were recorded after preparation of inlay cavities, regardless of the width of the occlusal box, compared to the direct composite resin cavities.

scholarly journals Morphological characterization of the tooth/adhesive interface

2006 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 179-185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra Kiss Moura ◽  
José Fortunato Ferreira Santos ◽  
Rafael Yagüe Ballester
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Morphological Characteristics ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Morphological Characterization ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Third Molars ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Adhesive Interface ◽  
Etch And Rinse

The purpose of this study was to assess the morphological characteristics of the tooth/adhesive interface using different adhesive systems in MOD restorations under scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The tested hypothesis was that the morphology of the bonding interface would vary in different areas of MOD restorations for the three adhesive systems. MOD cavities were prepared in 12 sound extracted human third molars and restored with Filtek Z250 composite resin and one of the following adhesive systems: Experimental ABF (n=4), Clearfil SE Bond (n=4) self-etching primers and Single Bond etch-and-rinse adhesive system (n=4). After 24-h storage in distilled water at 37ºC, teeth were sectioned and prepared for SEM. The interfacial morphology varied depending on the adhesive system and also on the evaluated area. The null hypothesis was accepted because the morphology of the tooth/adhesive interface reflected the characteristics of both the dental substrate and the adhesive systems.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document