scholarly journals Use of new scratch test and tensile test for evaluation of bond strength of selfadhesive flowable resin composite for repair of artificial tooth erosion

2020 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 435-443
Author(s):  
Yuki MURASE ◽  
Hirotomo KOTAKE ◽  
Shusuke KUSAKABE ◽  
Katsushi OKUYAMA ◽  
Yukimichi TAMAKI ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Tensile Test ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Scratch Test ◽  
Tooth Erosion ◽  
Artificial Tooth

scholarly journals Micro Push-Out Bond Strength of Resin Composite to Dentin in Primary Dentition Using Three Universal Adhesives with Different pH: An In Vitro Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (14) ◽  
pp. 6349
Author(s):  
Regina María Del Río Carrillo ◽  
Pedro Molinero-Mourelle ◽  
Vicente Vera ◽  
Pablo Romero Villaba ◽  
Elizabeth Casañas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Primary Dentition ◽  
Vitro Study ◽  
Deciduous Tooth ◽  
Universal Adhesives ◽  
Type Of Failure ◽  
Push Out

To evaluate the bond strength of different universal adhesives on deciduous tooth dentineand their relationship with the composition and potential of hydrogen (pH). Methods: An in vitromicro push-out test on 150 samples (n = 50) per group per adhesive, namely, Adhese Universal(ADH; Ivoclar Vivadent), Futurabond U (FUT; Voco GmbH) (Test), and Scotchbond Universal withpre-conditioning (SCO; 3M) (Control), to record bond strength (BS) and type of adhesive failure.Results: The results of the different adhesives (megapascals (MPa)) varied, showing no statisticalsignificance. The corresponding averages are in MPa: ADH, 13.66 2.81; FUT, 14.48 2.88; SCO,14.98 3.96. Additionally, the frequency of type of failure was as follows: mixed (60.7%), adhesive(27.3%), and cohesive (12%). Conclusions: SCO, with a pH of 2.7, showed greater resistance tofracture, while FUT, with a pH of 2.3 and no pre-conditioning, approached the same values, being aone-step adhesive. No relationship was found between failure and type of adhesive.

scholarly journals To Evaluate Shear Bond Strength of Resin Composite to Theracal Lc, Biodentine, and Resin–Modified Glass Ionomer Cement and Mode of Fracture: An In Vitro Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (02) ◽  
pp. 49-54
Author(s):  
Salil Mehra ◽  
Ashu K. Gupta ◽  
Bhanu Pratap Singh ◽  
Mandeep Kaur ◽  
Ashwath Kumar
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Analysis ◽  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Bonding Agent ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Universal Adhesive ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Abstract Introduction The aim of the current study was to evaluate shear bond strength of resin composite bonded to Theracal LC, Biodentine, and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) using universal adhesive and mode of fracture. Materials and Methods A total of 50 caries-free maxillary and mandibular molars extracted were taken; occlusal cavities were prepared, mounted in acrylic blocks, and divided into five groups based on the liner used. Group 1: Biodentine liner placed into the cavity and bonding agent and resin composite applied after 12 minutes. Group 2: Biodentine liner placed into the cavity and bonding agent and resin composite applied after 14 days. Group 3: RMGIC liner placed into the cavity and bonding agent and resin composite applied immediately. Group 4: RMGIC liner placed into the cavity and bonding agent and resin composite applied after 7 days. Group 5: Theracal LC liner placed into the cavity and bonding agent and resin composite applied immediately. Each sample was bonded to resin composite using universal adhesive. Shear bond strength analysis was performed at a cross-head speed of 0.1 mm/min. Statistical Analysis  Statistical analysis was performed with one-way analysis of variance and posthoc Bonferroni test using SPSS version 22.0. Results and Conclusion Biodentine liner when bonded immediately to resin composite showed minimum shear bond strength. RMGIC when bonded to resin composite after 7 days showed maximum shear bond strength. Mode of fracture was predominantly cohesive in groups having Biodentine and Theracal LC as liner.

Bond Strength Comparison of Amalgam Repair Protocols Using Resin Composite in Situations With and Without Dentin Exposure

2010 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 655-662 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Özcan ◽  
G. Schoonbeek ◽  
B. Gökçe ◽  
E. Çömlekoglu ◽  
M. Dündar
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Clinical Relevance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Amalgam Restorations

Clinical Relevance For reliable repair of amalgam restorations, including dentin fractures, the amalgam surface should first be silica coated; dentin/enamel should be etched, washed and rinsed thoroughly. Then, amalgam should be silanized and primer/bonding should be applied onto dentin.

scholarly journals The Effect of Different Disinfecting Agents on Bond Strength of Resin Composites

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmed Mohammed Hassan ◽  
Ahmed Ali Goda ◽  
Kusai Baroudi
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Sodium Hypochlorite ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Posterior Teeth ◽  
Surface Pretreatment ◽  
Dentin Surface ◽  
Post Hoc

Objective. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different disinfectant agents on bond strength of two types of resin composite materials.Methods. A total of 80 sound posterior teeth were used. They were divided into four groups(n=20)according to the dentin surface pretreatment (no treatment, chlorhexidine gluconate 2%, sodium hypochlorite 4%, and EDTA 19%). Each group was divided into two subgroups according to the type of adhesive (prime and bond 2.1 and Adper easy one). Each subgroup was further divided into two subgroups according to the type of resin composite (TPH spectrum and Tetric EvoCeram). Shear bond strength between dentin and resin composite was measured using Universal Testing Machine. Data collected were statistically analyzed byt-test and one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’spost hoctest.Results. It was found that dentin treated with EDTA recorded the highest shear bond strength values followed by sodium hypochlorite and then chlorhexidine groups while the control group showed the lowest shear bond strength.Conclusions. The surface treatment of dentin before bonding application has a great effect on shear bond strength between resin composite and dentin surface.

Surface treatment on artificial tooth/acrylic resin bond strength

2012 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. e26-e27
Author(s):  
R.A. Lara ◽  
R.N. Tango ◽  
G.F.S.A. Saavedra
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Acrylic Resin ◽  
Artificial Tooth

scholarly journals Effect of saliva contamination on bond strength witha hydrophilic composite resin

2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mauren Bitencourt Deprá ◽  
Josiane Xavier de Almeida ◽  
Taís de Morais Alves da Cunha ◽  
Luis Filipe Siu Lon ◽  
Luciana Borges Retamoso ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Color Change ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Bonding Material ◽  
Adhesive Remnant Index ◽  
Composite Methods ◽  
Standard Deviations ◽  
Saliva Contamination

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of saliva contamination on the bond strength of metallic brackets bonded to enamel with hydrophilic resin composite. METHODS: Eighty premolars were randomly divided into 4 groups (n = 20) according to bonding material and contamination: G1) bonded with Transbond XT with no saliva contamination, G2) bonded with Transbond XT with saliva contamination, G3) bonded with Transbond Plus Color Change with no saliva contamination and G4) bonded with Transbond Plus Color Change with saliva contamination. The results were statistically analyzed (ANOVA/Tukey). RESULTS: The means and standard deviations (MPa) were: G1)10.15 ± 3.75; G2) 6.8 ± 2.54; G3) 9.3 ± 3.36; G4) 8.3 ± 2.95. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) ranged between 0 and 1 in G1 and G4. In G2 there was a prevalence of score 0 and similar ARI distribution in G3. CONCLUSION: Saliva contamination reduced bond strength when Transbond XT hydrophobic resin composite was used. However, the hydrophilic resin Transbond Plus Color Change was not affected by the contamination.

scholarly journals COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF THE SHEAR BOND STRENGTH OF THREE SELF-ETCH DENTIN BONDING AGENTS TO DENTIN: AN IN-VITRO STUDY

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. 454-459
Author(s):  
Bhalla V. ◽  
◽  
K. Goud M. ◽  
Chockattu S. ◽  
Khera A ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Group Analysis ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Bonding Agents ◽  
Mandibular Molar ◽  
Self Etch

Background:Dentin bonding is an ever-evolving field in adhesive dentistry. With the introduction of newer systems into the market, there is a crucial need to test their efficiency in terms of bond strength. Dual-cured adhesives in theory may provide for a better degree of conversion as compared to conventional light-cured adhesives .Thus, the aim of this study was to compare the shear bond strength of three different self-etch adhesives namely ClearfilSE bond (Kuraray), Tetric N Bond Universal (IvoclarVivadent) and Futura Bond DC (Voco) to dentin. Materials & Methods: Ninety extracted non-carious, intact human mandibular molar teeth were selected for this study. Each tooth was decoronated using a double-sided diamond disc with water coolant to a depth of 2mm from the cusp tip .The cut dentin surface was then abraded against 600-grit wet silicon carbide papers for 60 seconds to produce a uniform smear layer. The root portion of each tooth was mounted on a plastic ring using cold cure acrylic resin. Specimens were then divided into three adhesive groups of 30 teeth each, Group A: ClearfilSE Bond (Kuraray), Group B: Tetric N Bond Universal (IvoclarVivadent), Group C :Futura Bond DC (Voco). All bonding agents were used according to the manufacturers’ instructions, in combination with the resin composite Tetric N Ceram (IvoclarVivadent). The samples were thermocycled, followed by shear bond strength testing using a Universal testing machine (Hounsfield). Data were subjected to statistical analysis using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) (P<0.05) and Post hoc Tukey’s test for inter- and intra- group analysis respectively. Results: Clearfil SE Bond yielded the highest shear bond strength values (30.9 ±4.66 MPa) which were statistically significant, followed byTetric N Bond Universal group (29.8 ±4.34) and the lowest shear bond strength values were recorded for Futura Bond DC (18.2 ±3.13). Conclusion: Clearfil SE bond and Tetric N bond Universal can be considered as better options than Futura Bond DC.

scholarly journals Effects of Immediate and Delayed Cementations for CAD/CAM Resin Block after Alumina Air Abrasion on Adhesion to Newly Developed Resin Cement

Materials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (22) ◽  
pp. 7058
Author(s):  
Akane Chin ◽  
Masaomi Ikeda ◽  
Tomohiro Takagaki ◽  
Toru Nikaido ◽  
Alireza Sadr ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Water Sorption ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Air Abrasion ◽  
Resin Cements ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Computer Aided ◽  
Cad Cam ◽  
Curing Methods

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of one week of Computer-aided design/Computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) crown storage on the μTBS between resin cement and CAD/CAM resin composite blocks. The micro-tensile bond strength (μTBS) test groups were divided into 4 conditions. There are two types of CAD/CAM resin composite blocks, namely A block and P block (KATANA Avencia Block and KATANA Avencia P Block, Kuraray Noritake Dental, Tokyo, Japan) and two types of resin cements. Additionally, there are two curing methods (light cure and chemical cure) prior to the μTBS test—Immediate: cementation was performed immediately; Delay: cementation was conducted after one week of storage in air under laboratory conditions. The effect of Immediate and Delayed cementations were evaluated by a μTBS test, surface roughness measurements, light intensity measurements, water sorption measurements and Scanning electron microscope/Energy dispersive X-ray spectrometry (SEM/EDS) analysis. From the results of the μTBS test, we found that Delayed cementation showed significantly lower bond strength than that of Immediate cementation for both resin cements and both curing methods using A block. There was no significant difference between the two types of resin cements or two curing methods. Furthermore, water sorption of A block was significantly higher than that of P block. Within the limitations of this study, alumina air abrasion of CAD/CAM resin composite restorations should be performed immediately before bonding at the chairside to minimize the effect of humidity on bonding.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document