Comparison of shear bond strength of self-adhering flowable composite with different flowable composites to dentin

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
MerveErkmen Almaz ◽  
AylinAkbay Oba ◽  
IşılŞaroğlu Sönmez ◽  
Deniz Sönmez
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Flowable Composite ◽  
Flowable Composites

scholarly journals Comparative Evaluation of the Shear Bond Strength and Debonding Properties of a Conventional Composite and Flowable Composites used for Orthodontic Bracket Bonding

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
BM Shivalinga ◽  
S Pradeep ◽  
Ravi Shanthraj ◽  
H Jyothi Kiran
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Bond Strength ◽  
Comparative Evaluation ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Orthodontic Bracket ◽  
Group Iii ◽  
Flowable Composite ◽  
Group I ◽  
Adhesive Remnant Index ◽  
Flowable Composites

ABSTRACT Aim To evaluate and compare shear bond strength (SBS) and debonding characters of the Transbond XT (BisGMA-based composite), Esthet-X flow (flowable composite), Filtek Z-350 (flowable composite). Materials and methods A total of 90 human premolars were divided into group I, Transbond XT (n = 30); group II, Esthet-X flow (n = 30) and group III, Filtek Z-350 (n = 30), the preadjusted edgewise stainless steel premolar brackets were bonded to evaluate the shear bond and debonding properties. Results The results of the statistical analysis comparing the three groups indicated no statistically significant differences between the groups. In general, the SBS with groups I and III exhibited similar bond strength with 11.58 ± 1.3 MPa and 11.07 ± 1.0 MPa respectively. Groups III exhibited least bond strength of 10.7 ± 2 MPa. In modified adhesive remnant index (ARI) the majority of bond failures occurred at enamel-adhesive interface or cohesive type failure in all the three groups. Groups II and III showed increased frequency of score 2, 4 and 5 compared to group I which showed increased frequency of score 0 and 1. Conclusion When considering the SBS and ARI scores obtained, flowable composites can be effectively applied to orthodontic bracket bonding. How to cite this article Pradeep S, Shanthraj R, Kiran HJ, Shivalinga BM. Comparative Evaluation of the Shear Bond Strength and Debonding Properties of a Conventional Composite and Flowable Composites used for Orthodontic Bracket Bonding. World J Dent 2013;4(1):6-16.

scholarly journals Relationships between Flexural and Bonding Properties, Marginal Adaptation, and Polymerization Shrinkage in Flowable Composite Restorations for Dental Application

Polymers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (16) ◽  
pp. 2613
Author(s):  
Akimasa Tsujimoto ◽  
Masao Irie ◽  
Erica Cappelletto Nogueira Teixeira ◽  
Carlos Alberto Jurado ◽  
Yukinori Maruo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Flexural Properties ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Polymerization Shrinkage ◽  
Flowable Composite ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Bonding Properties ◽  
Flowable Composites

To evaluate the flexural and bonding properties, marginal adaptation, and polymerization shrinkage in flowable composite restorations and their relationships, four new generation flowable composites, one conventional, and one bulk-fill flowable composite were used in this study. Flexural properties of the composites and shear bond strength to enamel and dentin for flowable restorations were measured immediately and 24 h after polymerization. Marginal adaptation, polymerization shrinkage, and stress were also investigated immediately after polymerization. The flexural properties, and bond strength of the flowable composites to enamel and dentin were much lower immediately after polymerization than at 24 h, regardless of the type of the composite. Polymerization shrinkage and stress varied depending on the material, and bulk-fill flowable composite showed much lower values than the others. The marginal adaptation and polymerization shrinkage of the composites appeared to have a much stronger correlation with a shear bond strength to dentin than to enamel. The weak mechanical properties and bond strengths of flowable composites in the early stage after polymerization must be taken into account when using them in the clinic. In addition, clinicians should be aware that polymerization shrinkage of flowable composites can still lead to the formation of gaps and failure of adaptation to the cavity regardless of the type of composite.

scholarly journals Effect of ultrasonic vibration on microshear bond strength of flowable composite to enamel

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mahtab Ebrahimi Nezhad ◽  
Dana Jafarpour ◽  
Mahdi Gholamrezaei Saravi
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Ultrasonic Vibration ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Internal Diameter ◽  
Bonding Agents ◽  
Vibration Effect ◽  
Flowable Composite ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Microshear Bond Strength ◽  
Flowable Composites

Objective: The present study aimed to assess the influence of vibration effect on microshear bond strength (µSBS) of flowable composite to enamel. Material and Methods: Sixty non-carious extracted human premolar teeth were collected and randomly divided into six groups (n = 10) after being trimmed to produce a smooth flat surface: Flowable composites [Wave (SDI), Wave HV (SDI) and Grandioflow (Voco)] were used as bonding agents without or with vibration using an ultrasonic scaler (Mini Piezon, EMS, Switzerland). Composite resin, with an internal diameter of 0.7mm and height of 1mm, was cured on the substrate. The specimens’ µSBS was tested by a microtensile tester (Bisco, USA) at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The bond strength values were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey test (p < 0.05). Results: Vibration did not lead to any significant difference in the µSBS values of Wave, Wave HV, and Grandio Flow µSBS values (P=0.690, P=1.000 and P=0.947, respectively). No significant difference was found between flowable composites in terms of micro shear bond strength to enamel (p > 0.05). Conclusions: The application of ultrasonic vibration might not be advantageous in terms of improving the shear bond strength of flowable composites to enamel. KEYWORDS Bond strength; Enamel; Flowable composite; Ultrasonic; Vibration.

scholarly journals Properties of Composite Materials Used for Bracket Bonding

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 279-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Caroline Silva Gama ◽  
Andre Guaraci de Vito Moraes ◽  
Lilyan Cardoso Yamasaki ◽  
Alessandro Dourado Loguercio ◽  
Ceci Nunes Carvalho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Flexural Strength ◽  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Stress Test ◽  
Flexural Modulus ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Contraction Stress ◽  
Materials Used ◽  
Flowable Composites

The purpose of this study was to evaluate in vitro the shear bond strength to enamel, flexural strength, flexural modulus, and contraction stress of one orthodontic composite and two flowable composites. Orthodontic brackets were bonded to 45 human maxillary premolars with the composites Transbond XT, Filtek Z-350 flow and Opallis flow and tested for shear bond strength. For measurement of flexural strength and flexural modulus, specimens were fabricated and tested under flexion. For the contraction stress test, cylindrical specimens were tested and an extensometer determined the height of the specimens. The data were subjected to one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α=0.05). The shear bond strength values were significantly lower (p<0.05) for the flowable composites compared with the orthodontic composite. For the flexural strength, no statistically significant difference was found among the composites (p>0.05) while the flexural modulus was significantly higher (p<0.05) for Transbond XT than for Filtek Z-350 flow and Opallis flow. The orthodontic composite presented significantly lower contraction stress values than the flowable composites (p<0.05). The light-activated orthodontic composite material presented higher flexural modulus and shear bond strength and lower contraction stress than both flowable composites.

scholarly journals Use of Flowable Composites for Orthodontic Bracket Bonding

2008 ◽  
Vol 78 (6) ◽  
pp. 1105-1109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dong-Bum Ryou ◽  
Hyo-Sang Park ◽  
Kyo-Han Kim ◽  
Tae-Yub Kwon
Keyword(s):  
Flexural Strength ◽  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Orthodontic Bracket ◽  
Bonding System ◽  
Adhesive Remnant Index ◽  
Human Enamel ◽  
Orthodontic Bonding ◽  
Flowable Composites ◽  
Bonding Characteristics

Abstract Objective: To test the bonding characteristics of four flowable composites for orthodontic bracket bonding. Materials and Methods: Metal brackets were bonded to acid-etched human enamel using four flowable composites (Grandio Flow, GF; UniFil Flow, UF; UniFil LoFlo Plus, UL; and DenFil Flow, DF), an orthodontic bonding system (Transbond XT, TX), and a restorative composite (Filtek Z250, FZ). After 24 hours of storage in water at 37°C, a shear bond strength (SBS) test was performed. After debonding, the adhesive remnant index (ARI) was assessed. In addition, the flow and flexural strength of the materials were examined. Results: The SBS for the flowable composites ranged between 7.2 and 8.3 MPa, and TX showed a significantly higher value (mean 10.9 MPa). The flowable composites also demonstrated a significantly superior flowability, yet inferior flexural strength (except for DF) than TX and FZ. Two flowable composites (GF and UL) produced significantly higher ARI scores than TX and FZ, which represented a larger resin remnant on the enamel surfaces after debonding. Conclusion: When considering the SBS and ARI scores obtained in this study, flowable composites with no intermediate bonding resin could be conveniently applied for orthodontic bracket bonding.

Effect of adhesive application on the shear bond strength of flowable composite resins and APC plus to orthodontic molar tubes

2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (7) ◽  
pp. 811-819 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Lobato ◽  
Javier Montero ◽  
Laura Ceballos ◽  
Raquel Oyagüe ◽  
Victoria Fuentes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Flowable Composite ◽  
Adhesive Application

scholarly journals Shear Bond Strength of Self-Adhesive Flowable Composite, Conventional Flowable Composite and Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement to Primary Dentin

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kiana Poorzandpoush ◽  
Mehdi Shahrabi ◽  
Alireza Heidari ◽  
Zohre Sadat Hosseinipour
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Adhesive Failure ◽  
Flowable Composite ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Group 3 ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Objectives: This study aimed to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of self-adhesive and conventional flowable composites and resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC) to primary dentin. Materials and Methods: In this in vitro, experimental study, the buccal surface of 48 primary canine and first molar teeth was longitudinally sectioned to expose dentin. The teeth were randomly divided into three groups (n=16) of 37.5% phosphoric acid+ OptiBond+ Premise Flow composite (group 1), Vertise Flow composite (group 2) and RMGIC (group 3). A plastic cylindrical mold was placed on the exposed dentin and filled with restorative materials. The samples were then immersed in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours, subjected to 1000 thermal cycles between 5-55°C and underwent SBS test. The mode of failure was determined under a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test. Results: A significant difference was noted in SBS of the groups (P<0.05). The SBS of conventional flowable composite was significantly higher that of RMGIC and self-adhesive flowable composite (P<0.05). The difference in SBS of RMGIC and self-adhesive flowable composite was not significant (P>0.05). Failure at the dentin-restoration interface (adhesive failure) had the highest frequency in groups 1 and 2. The frequency of adhesive failure was 100% in group 3. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, the conventional flowable composite yielded the highest SBS to primary dentin. Self-adhesive flowable composite and RMGIC showed the lowest SBS with no significant difference with each other.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document