scholarly journals Evaluating resin-enamel bonds by microshear and microtensile bond strength tests: effects of composite resin

2010 ◽  
Vol 18 (6) ◽  
pp. 591-598 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Mello de Andrade ◽  
Sandra Kiss Moura ◽  
Alessandra Reis ◽  
Alessandro Dourado Loguercio ◽  
Eugenio Jose Garcia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Strength Tests

scholarly journals Effect of surface treatments of laboratory-fabricated composites on the microtensile bond strength to a luting resin cement

2004 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos José Soares ◽  
Marcelo Giannini ◽  
Marcelo Tavares de Oliveira ◽  
Luis Alexandre Maffei Sartini Paulillo ◽  
Luis Roberto Marcondes Martins
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Hydrofluoric Acid ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Surface Treatments ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Bonded Interface ◽  
Luting Composite ◽  
Effect Of Surface

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of different surface treatments on composite resin on the microtensile bond strength to a luting resin cement. Two laboratory composites for indirect restorations, Solidex and Targis, and a conventional composite, Filtek Z250, were tested. Forty-eight composite resin blocks (5.0 x 5.0 x 5.0mm) were incrementally manufactured, which were randomly divided into six groups, according to the surface treatments: 1- control, 600-grit SiC paper (C); 2- silane priming (SI); 3- sandblasting with 50 mm Al2O3 for 10s (SA); 4- etching with 10% hydrofluoric acid for 60 s (HF); 5- HF + SI; 6 - SA + SI. Composite blocks submitted to similar surface treatments were bonded together with the resin adhesive Single Bond and Rely X luting composite. A 500-g load was applied for 5 minutes and the samples were light-cured for 40s. The bonded blocks were serially sectioned into 3 slabs with 0.9mm of thickness perpendicularly to the bonded interface (n = 12). Slabs were trimmed to a dumbbell shape and tested in tension at 0.5mm/min. For all composites tested, the application of a silane primer after sandblasting provided the highest bond strength means.

scholarly journals Microtensile Bond Strength of Methacrylate and Silorane Resins to Enamel and Dentin

2014 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 327-331 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gisele Rodrigues da Silva ◽  
Isabela Sousa Araújo ◽  
Rodrigo Dantas Pereira ◽  
Bruno de Castro Ferreira Barreto ◽  
Célio Jesus do Prado ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Aging Time ◽  
Storage Time ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Glass Plate ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Bonding Interaction ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
And Storage

The aim of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength (µTBS) of two substrates (enamel and dentin) considering two study factors: type of composite resin [methacrylate-based (Filtek Supreme) or silorane-based (Filtek LS)] and aging time (24 h or 3 months). Twenty human molars were selected and divided into 2 groups (n=10) considering two dental substrates, enamel or dentin. The enamel and dentin of each tooth was divided into two halves separated by a glass plate. Each tooth was restored using both tested composite resins following the manufacturer's instructions. The samples were sectioned, producing 4 sticks for each composite resin. Half of them were tested after 24 h and half after 3 months. µTBS testing was carried out at 0.05 mm/s. Data were analyzed by three-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD tests at α=0.05. Significant differences between composite resins and substrates were found (p<0.05), but no statistically significant difference was found for aging time and interactions among study factors. The methacrylate-based resin showed higher µTBS than the silorane-based resin. The µTBS for enamel was significantly higher than for dentin, irrespective of the composite resin and storage time. Three months of storage was not sufficient time to cause degradation of the bonding interaction of either of the composite resins to enamel and dentin.

Reliability and correlation between microshear and microtensile bond strength tests of composite repairs

2020 ◽  
Vol 103 ◽  
pp. 103607
Author(s):  
Isabelle Adad Fornazari ◽  
Rafael Torres Brum ◽  
Rodrigo Nunes Rached ◽  
Evelise Machado de Souza
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Strength Tests ◽  
Composite Repairs

scholarly journals Influence of method and period of storage on the microtensile bond strength of indirect composite resin restorations to dentine

2008 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 352-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernanda Ribeiro Santana ◽  
Janaína Carla Pereira ◽  
Cristina Alves Pereira ◽  
Alfredo Júlio Fernandes Neto ◽  
Carlos José Soares
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Indirect Composite ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Resin Restorations

Microtensile bond strength of composite resin to glass-infiltrated alumina composite conditioned with Er,Cr:YSGG laser

2010 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos de Paula Eduardo ◽  
Marina Stella Bello-Silva ◽  
Simone Gonçalves Moretto ◽  
Paulo Francisco Cesar ◽  
Patricia Moreira de Freitas
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Alumina Composite

scholarly journals Effect of Surface Pretreatments on the Microtensile Bond Strength of Lithium-Disilicate Ceramic Repaired with Composite Resin

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 349-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Regina Claudia Ramos Colares ◽  
Jiovanne Rabelo Neri ◽  
Andre Mattos Brito de Souza ◽  
Karina Matthes de Freitas Pontes ◽  
Juliano Sartori Mendonca ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Hydrofluoric Acid ◽  
Room Temperature ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Lithium Disilicate ◽  
Airborne Particle ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Pretreatment ◽  
Oxide Particles

The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of ceramic surface treatments and silane drying temperature on the microtensile bond strength (µTBS) of a resin composite to a lithium disilicate ceramic. Twenty blocks (7x7x5 mm) of lithium disilicate-based hotpressed ceramic were fabricated and randomly divided into 4 groups: G1: acid etching with 9.5% hydrofluoric acid for 20 s and drying silane with room-temperature air; G2: acid etching with 9.5% hydrofluoric acid for 20 s and drying silane with 45 ± 5 °C warm air; G3: airborne-particle abrasion with 50 µm aluminum oxide particles and drying silane with 45 ± 5 °C warm air; G4: airborne-particle abrasion with 50 µm aluminum oxide particles and drying silane with air at room-temperature. After treatments, an adhesive system (Single Bond 2) was applied, light-cured and direct restorations were built up with a resin composite (Filtek Z250). Each specimen was stored in distilled water at 37 °C for 24 h and cut into ceramic-composite beams with 1 mm2 of cross-sectional area for µTBS testing. Statistical analysis was performed with one-way ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls test (α=0.05). µTBS means (S.D.) in MPa were: G1: 32.14 (7.98), G2: 35.00 (7.77) and G3: 18.36 (6.17). All specimens of G4 failed during the cutting. G1 and G2 presented significantly higher µTBS than G3 (p<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between G1 and G2 (p>0.05). As far as the bond strength is concerned, surface pretreatment of lithium-disilicate ceramic with hydrofluoric acid and silane application can be used as an alternative to repair ceramic restorations with composite resin, while surface pretreatment with sandblasting should be avoided.

scholarly journals Comparative Evaluation of Microtensile Bond Strength of Three Restorative Materials

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 6688-6694
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Tensile Bond Strength ◽  
Restorative Material ◽  
Third Molars ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Flowable Composite ◽  
Carious Lesions ◽  
Occlusal Surfaces ◽  
Frequent Failure

The present study aimed to compare the micro-tensile bond strength of new and conventional glass-ionomers and Z350 flowable composite resin to sound and caries-affected dentin. Eighty extracted third molars were selected. Standard Cl I cavities were prepared on occlusal surfaces. Forty teeth were assigned to the sound tooth group, and in the remaining 40 teeth, carious lesions were produced using a laboratory technique. Then each group (n=40) was subdivided into 5 groups (n=8) in terms of the restorative material used (EQUIA® Forte, Ketac Molar, encapsulated and hand-mixed GC Fuji II LC glass-ionomers and Z350 flowable composite resin). The cavities were restored. The highest micro-tensile bond strength was recorded with Z350 flowable composite resin in sound dentin (29.65), and the lowest was recorded with GC Fuji II LC (powder, liquid) in affected dentin (7.88). Significant differences were detected in the micro-tensile bond strength between the 5 restorative material groups. The composite resin bond strength was the maximum and was significantly different from all the other groups. The micro-tensile bond strength was affected by the type of dentin; in this context, in all the restorative groups, the bond strength in sound dentin was significantly higher than that in affected dentin. The most frequent failure mode was adhesive in the sound and affected dentin.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document