Microleakage and Shear Punch Bond Strength in Class II Primary Molars Cavities Restored with Low Shrink Silorane Based versus Methacrylate Based Composite using Three Different Techniques

2010 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amal Ezzeldin Fahmy ◽  
Nadia Moustafa Farrag
Keyword(s):  
Composite Materials ◽  
Bond Strength ◽  
Adhesive Bonding ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Primary Molars ◽  
Resin Composites ◽  
Mode Of Failure ◽  
Shear Punch ◽  
Bonding Technique

Objectives: This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the gingival microleakage in class II cavities in primary molars restored with a low shrink silorane resin composite (Filtek P90) or a nanohybride composite resin(Filtek supreme XT) using three different techniques, (total bonding, closed or open sandwich techniques)lined by nano-filled resin modified glass ionomer cement RMGIC (Ketac N100). Additionally, the shear punch bond strength between the two types of composite and KN100 was also examined. Study design:For microleakage test, two standardized class II slot cavities were prepared in proximal surfaces of 60 sound extracted primary molars which were divided into 2 groups of 30 each according to the type of composite. Each group was subdivided into 3 groups (n = 10) according to the restorative technique used. The restored teeth were examined for microleakage after immersion in 2% methylene blue dye using stereomicroscope at 20 X. Microleakage scores among the groups were compared using Kruskal Wallis test followed by pair wise Mann Whitney U test at P ≤ 0.05. Thirty disc specimens were prepared for determining the shear punch bond strength between the two composite materials and the KN100. Specimens were divided into 5 groups (n = 6) according to the adhesive protocol. The differences in mean bond strength values in MPa between groups were statistically analyzed using ANOVA followed by pair wise Tukey Post hoc test at P ≤ 0.05.Mode of failure was also evaluated for all groups. Results: Both the silorane resin and nano-composite resin showed superior marginal seal with the total bonding technique compared to closed and open sandwich techniques. The recorded mean shear punch bond strength values showed no statistical significant difference between the two resin composites without or with their adhesive bonding systems when bonded to the nano-ionomer. All specimens showed cohesive mode of failures except for silorane resin with Adper Easy Bond Self Etch Adhesive (AEBSEA) which showed adhesive mode of failure. Conclusions: The best marginal seal was obtained with the total bonding technique using both resin composites. The shear punch bond strength between KN100 and the two composite materials was not affected by either of the used adhesive bonding agent.

scholarly journals Microtensile Bond Strength of Polyacid-modified Composite Resin to Irradiated Primary Molars

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-195
Author(s):  
Yucel Yilmaz ◽  
Sultan Keles ◽  
Orhan Sezen
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Primary Teeth ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Tooth Enamel ◽  
Primary Tooth ◽  
Primary Molars ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Tooth Dentin

ABSTRACT Aim This study evaluated the influence of various doses of radiotherapy on the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of compomer resin to dentin and enamel in primary molars. Materials and methods Thirty-five intact primary molars were collected and divided into seven groups. Teeth were irradiated with doses from 10 to 60 Gy, except for the control group. Compomer restorations were performed, and enamel—compomer resin beams and dentin—compomer resin beams were tested at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Results No statistically significant difference was found between the irradiated tooth enamel and the control group (F = 1.1468; p = 0.194). However, statistically significant differences were evident among the dentin groups (F = 11.050; p < 0.001). Conclusion Radiation may not cause a significant difference in the μTBS of compomer resin to primary tooth enamel, but appears to dose dependently decrease its bond strength to primary tooth dentin. Clinical significance Radiotherapy may affect the success rate of compomer fillings in primary teeth, especially in deeper cavities with exposed dentin. How to cite this article Keles S, Yilmaz Y, Sezen O. Microtensile Bond Strength of Polyacid-modified Composite Resin to Irradiated Primary Molars. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018;19(2):189-195.

Effect of Cyclic Loading on the Bond Strength of Class II Restorations with Different Composite Materials

10.2341/07-65 ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. N. Cavalcanti ◽  
F. H. O. Mitsui ◽  
F. Silva ◽  
A. R. Peris ◽  
A. Bedran-Russo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Composite Materials ◽  
Cyclic Loading ◽  
Bond Strength ◽  
Clinical Relevance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Clinical Situation ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Selection Of

Clinical Relevance New resin composite technologies, such as nano-filled-based systems, have been developed. The assessment of such materials in a simulated laboratory chewing condition may assist with the selection of composites in a clinical situation.

Effect of Remineralizing Agents on Bond Strength of Resin-Composites to Primary Enamel

2019 ◽  
Vol 43 (5) ◽  
pp. 331-336
Author(s):  
Faika Y Abdelmegid ◽  
Fouad S Salama ◽  
Eman I Abouobaid ◽  
Hassan S Halawany ◽  
Mohamad K Alhadlaq
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Resin Composites ◽  
Bond Failure ◽  
In Vitro Investigation ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Mode Of Failure ◽  
Post Hoc

Aim: The purpose of this in vitro investigation was to assess the effect of three remineralizing agents (Voco Remin Pro®, Uncle Harry's remineralization kit, Sunshine remineralization gel) on the shear bond strengths of two resin-composites (Tetric® N-Ceram and Filtek™ Z250 Universal Restorative) to enamel of primary molars. Study design: Ninety-six enamel specimens were prepared and randomly distributed to eight groups according to the control, remineralizing agents, and resin composite used. Shear bond strength was measured at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min and the type of bond failure was recorded. Results: The highest shear bond strength (Mean+SD) in MPa was for Tetric® N-Ceram/control [21.06+1.68] while the lowest was for Filtek™ Z250/Sunshine remineralization gel [11.98+1.46]. Tukey HSD Post Hoc Tests showed significant difference between Tetric® N-Ceram/control and all other groups (p=0.0001) except Filtek™ Z250/control. In addition, there was significant difference between Filtek™ Z250/control and all other groups (p=0.0001) except Tetric® N-Ceram/control and Tetric® N-Ceram/Uncle Harry's remineralization kit. Mode of failure was cohesive (9.38%), adhesive (55.21%), and mixed (35.42%). Conclusions: The three tested remineralizing agents affect shear bond strength of the tested resin-composites to enamel of primary teeth. In general, shear bond strength values were acceptable. Mode of failure was mostly adhesive.

Clinical Evaluation of Restorative Materials in Primary Teeth Class II Lesions

2015 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 315-321 ◽  
Author(s):  
F Sengul ◽  
T Gurbuz
Keyword(s):  
Primary Teeth ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Clinical Success ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Biological Evaluation ◽  
Primary Molars ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Restorative Materials

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical success of primary teeth class II lesions restored with different restorative materials [Hybrid Composite Resin (HCR), Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement (RMGIC), compomer, and Giomer Composite Resin (GCR)] followed up for 24 months. Study Design: This study was carried out on 146 primary molars of 41 children in the age range of 5–7 years. The class II lesions in primary molars of a patient were restored using different restorative materials. Restorations were evaluated according to FDI-criteria and their survival rates were determined. Data were analysed with Pearson chi-square, Kaplan-Meier and Wilcoxon (Breslow) tests (α = 0.05). Results: The failure rates of restorative materials were as follows: compomer 33.3%, RMGIC 28.1%, HCR 22.5% and GCR 21.1%. Conclusions: While the functional failure was the most important factor in restorative material failure, RMGIC was the most successful material in terms of biological evaluation criterion and GCR had the longest survival rate.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document