scholarly journals Comparison of shear bond strength of orthodontics brackets on composite resin restorations with different surface treatments

2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 98-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandre Antonio Ribeiro ◽  
Ariane Vicente de Morais ◽  
Daniel Paludo Brunetto ◽  
Antonio Carlos de Oliveira Ruellas ◽  
Monica Tirre Souza de Araujo
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Dental Enamel ◽  
Acrylic Resin ◽  
Orthodontic Brackets ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Post Test ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Resin Restorations

INTRODUCTION: Orthodontic patients frequently present composite resin restorations, however there are few studies that evaluate the best way for orthodontic bonding in this situation. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this work was to evaluate the bond strength of orthodontic brackets in resin restorations with surface treatment. METHODS: Fifty one bovine lower incisors were randomly divided into three groups. On the control group (CG) the brackets were bonded to dental enamel; on experimental groups, brackets were bonded to resin restoration with diamond drill treatment (EGT) and with no treatment (EGN). The teeth were placed in PVC tubes with autopolymerized acrylic resin. The shear test was performed in EMIC universal testing machine. The groups were submitted to ANOVA analysis of variance with Tukey post test to verify the statistical difference between groups (α = 0.05). RESULTS: CG (6.62 MPa) and EGT (6.82 MPa) groups presented similar results, while EGN (5.07 MPa) obtained statistically lower results (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Therefore, it is concluded that the best technique for bonding of orthodontic brackets on composite resin restorations is the performance of surface detritions.

scholarly journals Evaluation of an alternative technique to optimize direct bonding of orthodontic brackets to temporary crowns

2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 57-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francilena Maria Campos Santos Dias ◽  
Célia Regina Maio Pinzan-Vercelino ◽  
Rudys Rodolfo de Jesus Tavares ◽  
Júlio de Araújo Gurgel ◽  
Fausto Silva Bramante ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Surface Preparation ◽  
Acrylic Resin ◽  
Orthodontic Brackets ◽  
Diamond Bur ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Group 1

OBJECTIVE: To compare shear bond strength of different direct bonding techniques of orthodontic brackets to acrylic resin surfaces.METHODS: The sample comprised 64 discs of chemically activated acrylic resin (CAAR) randomly divided into four groups: discs in group 1 were bonded by means of light-cured composite resin (conventional adhesive); discs in group 2 had surfaces roughened with a diamond bur followed by conventional direct bonding by means of light-cured composite resin; discs in group 3 were bonded by means of CAAR (alternative adhesive); and discs in group 4 had surfaces roughened with a diamond bur followed by direct bonding by means of CAAR. Shear bond strength values were determined after 24 hours by means of a universal testing machine at a speed of 0.5 mm/min, and compared by analysis of variance followed by post-hoc Tukey test. Adhesive remnant index (ARI) was measured and compared among groups by means of Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests.RESULTS: Groups 3 and 4 had significantly greater shear bond strength values in comparison to groups 1 and 2. Groups 3 and 4 yielded similar results. Group 2 showed better results when compared to group 1. In ARI analyses, groups 1 and 2 predominantly exhibited a score equal to 0, whereas groups 3 and 4 predominantly exhibited a score equal to 3.CONCLUSIONS: Direct bonding of brackets to acrylic resin surfaces using CAAR yielded better results than light-cured composite resin. Surface preparation with diamond bur only increased shear bond strength in group 2.

Shear bond strength of repaired composite resin restorations

2002 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 569 ◽  
Author(s):  
Soo-young Choi ◽  
Sun-Wa Jeong ◽  
Yun-Chan Hwang ◽  
Sun-Ho Kim ◽  
Chang Yun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Resin Restorations

scholarly journals The Impact of Chlorhexidine Mouth Rinse on the Bond Strength of Polycarbonate Orthodontic Brackets

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. 688-692 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sukumaran Anil ◽  
Farouk Ahmed Hussein ◽  
Mohammed Ibrahim Hashem ◽  
Elna P Chalisserry
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Test Group ◽  
Orthodontic Brackets ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Mouth Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Bond Strengths ◽  
The Impact

ABSTRACT Objective The purpose of the current in-vivo study was to assess the effect of using 0.12% chlorhexidine (CHX) mouth rinse, before bonding, on shear bond strength of polycarbonate brackets bonded with composite adhesive. Subjects and methods Eighteen orthodontic patients with a mean age 21.41 ± 1.2 years, who were scheduled to have 2 or more first premolars extracted, were included in this study. Patients were referred for an oral prophylaxis program which included, in part, the use of a mouth rinse. Patients were divided into 2 groups, a test group of 9 patients who used 0.12% CHX gluconate mouth rinse twice daily and a control group of 9 patients who used a mouth rinse without CHX, but with same color. After 1 week, polycarbonate brackets were bonded to first premolars with Transbond XT composite adhesive. Premolars were extracted after 28 days and tested for shear bond strength on a universal testing machine. Student's t-test was used to compare shear bond strengths of both groups. Results No statistically significant difference was found in bond strengths’ values between both groups. The test group (with CHX) has mean shear bond strength of 14.21 ± 2.42 MPa whereas the control group (without CHX) revealed a mean strength of 14.52 ± 2.31 MPa. Conclusion The use of 0.12% CHX mouth rinse, for one week before bonding, did not affect the shear bond strength of polycarbonate brackets bonded with Transbond composite. Furthermore, these brackets showed clinically acceptable bond strength. How to cite this article Hussein FA, Hashem MI, Chalisserry EP, Anil S. The Impact of Chlorhexidine Mouth Rinse on the Bond Strength of Polycarbonate Orthodontic Brackets. J Contemp Dent Pract 2014;15(6):688-692.

scholarly journals Effect of Provisional Cements on Shear Bond Strength of Porcelain Laminate Veneers

2011 ◽  
Vol 05 (04) ◽  
pp. 373-379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Subutay Han Altintas ◽  
Onjen Tak ◽  
Asli Secilmis ◽  
Aslihan Usumez
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Calcium Hydroxide ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Acrylic Resin ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Molar Teeth ◽  
Laminate Veneers ◽  
Selection Of

ABSTRACTObjectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of three provisional cements and two cleaning techniques on the final bond strength of porcelain laminate veneers. Methods: The occlusal third of the crowns of forty molar teeth were sectioned and embedded in autopolymerizing acrylic resin. Dentin surfaces were polished and specimens were randomly divided into four groups (n=10). Provisional restorations were fabricated and two provisional restorations were cemented onto each tooth. Restorations were fixed with one of three different provisional cements: eugenol-free provisional cement (Cavex), calcium hydroxide (Dycal), and light-cured provisional cement (Tempond Clear). Provisional restorations were removed with either a dental explorer and air-water spray, or a cleaning bur (Opticlean). In the control group, provisional restorations were not used on the surfaces of specimens. IPS Empress 2 ceramic discs were luted with a dual-cured resin cement (Panavia F). Shear bond strength was measured using a universal testing machine. Data were statistically analyzed by ANOVA, Tukey’s HSD and Dunnett tests. Surfaces were examined by scanning electronic microscopy. Results: Significant differences were found between the control group and both the light-cured provisional cement groups and the eugenol-free provisional cement-cleaning bur group (P<.05). Groups that had received light-cured provisional cement showed the lowest bond strength values. Conclusions: Selection of the provisional cement is an important factor in the ultimate bond strength of the final restoration. Calcium hydroxide provisional cement and cleaning with a dental explorer are advisable. (Eur J Dent 2011;5:373-379)

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

scholarly journals Step-by-step teaching method: improving learning outcomes of undergraduate dental students in layering techniques for direct composite resin restorations

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jia-xue Yuan ◽  
Ke-yu Yang ◽  
Jing Ma ◽  
Zhen-zhen Wang ◽  
Qing-yu Guo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Teaching Method ◽  
Dental Students ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Final Score ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Group Control Group ◽  
Experimental Group ◽  
Resin Restorations

Abstract Background Layering techniques for direct composite resin restorations might be complicated for inexperienced learners, as a number of materials and instruments are required at each step. The present study aimed to compare and assess the teaching effect of step-by-step and all-in-one teaching methods in layering techniques for direct composite resin restorations among undergraduate dental students. Methods A total of 68 junior dental students participated in this study, which was a prospective and single-blind trial. The students were randomly divided into a step-by-step group (experimental group, n = 34) and all-in-one group (control group, n = 34). The same teacher taught the two groups, ensuring a comparable teaching effect. The final score of each student was an average of scores by two experts who were blinded to the grouping. The scoring system was consisted by five parts. Each part was assigned scores of 3.0, 1.5, or 0. The total maximum score was 15 and minimum was 0. The total time taken by each group was also calculated. Results The values of the quality of tooth restorations evaluated by experts for step-by-step and all-in-one groups were 11.29 ± 2.13 from 15 and 9.00 ± 2.71 from 15 (t = 3.88, P < 0.001), respectively. In addition, the time spent by the experimental group was significantly lesser than that spent by the control group, which was 122.47 ± 2.82 and 137.18 ± 6.75 min, respectively (t = 11.72, p < 0.001). Conclusion With regard to the layering techniques for direct composite resin restorations, the outcomes were better in the step-by-step group than in the all-in-one group.

Effect of different surface-cleaning techniques on the bond strength of composite resin restorations

2014 ◽  
Vol 112 (4) ◽  
pp. 949-956 ◽  
Author(s):  
Selim Erkut ◽  
Burak Yilmaz ◽  
Bora Bagis ◽  
Cigdem Küçükeşmen ◽  
Erdem Ozdemir ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Surface Cleaning ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Resin Restorations

Resistência de união ao cisalhamento entre a resina composta e dentes artificiais de resina acrílica

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (40) ◽  
pp. 33-37
Author(s):  
Joyce de Figueiredo Meira Barbosa ◽  
Lara Pepita de Souza Oliveira ◽  
Marcelo Nascimento Bruce ◽  
Jonas Alves Oliveira ◽  
Ligia Regina Mota Vasconcelos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Acrylic Resin ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Group Iii ◽  
Group I ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Artificial Teeth

Acrylic denture teeth may suffer fracture or wear requiring the need for repair. This study aimed to evaluate the shear bond strength between acrylic resin artificial teeth restored with composite resin (with two different surface treatments) and acrylic resin (AR), simulating repair with these materials. Thirty artificial incisors were included by the palatal side in a circular microwave-polymerized AR base and polished on their buccal side with 120 and 320 grit sandpaper in a metallographic polisher and, then, divided into three groups: (I) restoration with self-cured AR; (II) conventional restoration with Z-100 composite resin with application of acid etching and Single Bond-3M adhesive; and (III) restoration with Z-100 composite resin with submersion for 30 seconds in acetone and application of Single Bond-3M adhesive. Shear bond strength tests were performed in a Universal Testing Machine (Instron). The results were submitted to ANOVA and Tukey (p<0.05) tests, in which Group I (33.26MPa ±10.76) and Group III (22.24MPa ±13.13) showed no statistically significant difference, but both were superior to Group II (10.31MPa ±5.62), which showed a lower value of shear bond strength. It can be concluded that composite resin restoration with acetone pretreatment can be a viable alternative for repair.

The Use of Bur and Laser for Root Caries Treatment: A Comparative Study

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 290-298 ◽  
Author(s):  
V Geraldo-Martins ◽  
T Thome ◽  
M Mayer ◽  
M Marques
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Significant Loss ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Strong Positive Correlation ◽  
Root Caries ◽  
Residual Caries ◽  
Caries Removal ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Resin Restorations

Summary This research analyzed the influence of bur and erbium, chromium:yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet (Er,Cr:YSGG) laser caries removal on cavity characteristics and marginal seal of composite resin restorations. One hundred and forty human dental root samples were used. After in vitro root caries induction using Streptococcus mutans, the carious lesions were removed either by a conventional technique using burs (G1=control) or by using an Er,Cr:YSGG laser (λ=2.78 μm, 20 Hz, pulse duration≅140 μs, noncontact mode using a 600-μm tip) with the following power outputs: G2: 1.0 W; G3: 1.25 W; G4: 1.5 W; G5: 1.75 W; G6: 2.0 W; G7: 2.25 W; G8: 2.5 W; G9: 2.75 W; G10: 3.0 W; G11: 3.25 W; G12: 3.5 W; G13: 3.75 W; and G14: 4.0 W. Samples in the 14 groups (n=10) were conditioned with Clearfil SE Bond and restored with a flowable composite. They were then thermocycled (1000 cycles) and immersed into a 2% methylene blue solution for microleakage analysis. The data were statistically compared (analysis of variance or Spearman correlation tests; p≤0.05). The lased groups showed significantly greater microleakage indexes, cavity depths, and presence of residual caries than did those of the control group. There was a strong positive correlation between residual caries and microleakage. The results indicate that Er,Cr:YSGG laser irradiation is not a good alternative to the use of burs for root caries removal since it may cause a significant loss of marginal sealing in composite resin restorations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document