In Vitro Evaluation of Onlay Restorations on Primary Teeth

2017 ◽  
Vol 40 (12) ◽  
pp. 709-713
Author(s):  
Kadriye G.U. Güzel ◽  
Ayşe C. Altun ◽  
Zuhal Kirzioğlu
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Primary Teeth ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Permanent Teeth ◽  
Primary Tooth ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Bond Strengths ◽  
Materials Used

Purpose Many novel materials have been developed such as composite resin, ceramic, zircon or metal-supported ceramic for use in aesthetic restoration of primary teeth and permanent teeth with extensive crown damage. The aim of the present study was to compare microtensile bond strengths on materials using the microtensile bond strength test. Materials and methods The microtensile bond strength on the primary tooth dentin was measured on extracted primary teeth using an indirect method and fracture patterns were evaluated. Results The analysis of bond strengths using the Mann-Whitney U-test did not show significant difference between the rank averages of the compomer and composite resin (p = 0.741). The dentin sections, from which test samples were obtained, contributed to the bond strength; dentin samples obtained just above the pulp had lower bond strength, and the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.005). The adhesive type fracture was the most prevalent fracture type for both materials. Conclusions When the chemical, physiological, and micromorphological differences between primary and permanent teeth are taken into consideration, the success of the materials used for restorations can be different between primary and permanent teeth. Therefore, materials used in the dentistry must be evaluated separately for primary teeth.

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.

Microtensile Bond Strength of Contemporary Adhesives to Primary Enamel and Dentin

2007 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcela Marquezan ◽  
Bruno Lopes da Silveira ◽  
Luizb Henrique Burnett Jr ◽  
Célia Regina Martins Delgado Rodrigues ◽  
Paulo Floriani Kramer
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Primary Teeth ◽  
Tooth Enamel ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Primary Tooth ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Significant Difference

The purpose of this study was to assess bond strength of three self-etching and two total-etch adhesive systems bonded to primary tooth enamel and dentin. Materials and methods: Forty extracted primary human molars were selected and abraded in order to create flat buccal enamel and occlusal dentin surfaces. Teeth were assigned to one of the adhesive systems: Adper Scotch Bond Multi Purpose, Adper Single Bond 2,Adper Prompt L-Pop, Clearfil SE Bond and AdheSE. Imediately to adhesive aplication, a composite resin(Filtek Z250) block was built up. After 3 months of water storage, each sample was sequentially sectioned in order to obtain sticks with a square cross-sectional area of about 0.72 mm2. The specimens were fixed lengthways to a microtensile device and tested using a universal testing machine with a 50-N load cell at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Microtensile bond strength values were recorded in MPa and compared by Analysis of Variance and the post hoc Tukey test (a=0.05). Results: In enamel, Clearfil SE Bond presented the highest values, followed by Adper Single Bond 2, AdheSE and Adper Scotch Bond Multi Purpose, without significant difference. The highest values in dentin were obtained with Adper Scotch Bond Multi Purpose and all other adhesives did not present significant different values from that, except Adper Prompt L-Pop that achieved the lowest bond strength in both substrates. Adper Scotch Bond Multi Purpose and Adper Single Bond 2 presented significantly lower values in enamel than in dentin although all other adhesives presented similar results in both substrates. Conclusions: contemporary adhesive systems present similar behaviors when bonded to primary teeth, with the exception of the one-step self-etching system; and selfetching systems can achieve bond strength values as good in enamel as in dentin of primary teeth.

scholarly journals Microtensile bond strength of a repair composite to leucite-reinforced feldspathic ceramic

2007 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 314-319 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renata Marques de Melo ◽  
Luiz Felipe Valandro ◽  
Marco Antonio Bottino
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Hydrofluoric Acid ◽  
Null Hypothesis ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Ceramic Surface ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Microtensile Testing ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Ceramic Blocks ◽  
Bond Strengths

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength of a repair composite resin to a leucite-reinforced feldspathic ceramic (Omega 900, VITA) submitted to two surface conditionings methods: 1) etching with hydrofluoric acid + silane application or 2) tribochemical silica coating. The null hypothesis is that both surface treatments can generate similar bond strengths. Ten ceramic blocks (6x6x6 mm) were fabricated and randomly assigned to 2 groups (n=5), according to the conditioning method: G1- 10% hydrofluoric acid application for 2 min plus rinsing and drying, followed by silane application for 30 s; G2- airborne particle abrasion with 30 µm silica oxide particles (CoJet-Sand) for 20 s using a chairside air-abrasion device (CoJet System), followed by silane application for 5 min. Single Bond adhesive system was applied to the surfaces and light cured (40 s). Z-250 composite resin was placed incrementally on the treated ceramic surface to build a 6x6x6 mm block. Bar specimens with an adhesive area of approximately 1 ± 0.1 mm² were obtained from the composite-ceramic blocks (6 per block and 30 per group) for microtensile testing. No statistically significant difference was observed between G1 (10.19 ± 3.1 MPa) and G2 (10.17 ± 3.1 MPa) (p=0.982) (Student's t test; á = 0.05). The null hypothesis was, therefore, accepted. In conclusion, both surface conditioning methods provided similar microtensile bond strengths between the repair composite resin and the ceramic. Further studies using long-term aging procedures should be conducted.

scholarly journals Bond Strength of Self-Adhesive Flowable Composites and Glass Ionomer Cements to Primary Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies

Materials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (21) ◽  
pp. 6694
Author(s):  
Flavia Iaculli ◽  
Alessandro Salucci ◽  
Gianni Di Giorgio ◽  
Valeria Luzzi ◽  
Gaetano Ierardo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Bond Strength ◽  
Primary Teeth ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Deciduous Teeth ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Flowable Composites

Background: Conventional composites are largely used in pediatric restorative dentistry and demonstrate successful clinical outcomes. However, the need for simplification of operative steps in young or uncooperative children demands reliable alternatives. Therefore, the aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the in vitro bond strength of glass ionomer cements (GICs) and self-adhesive flowable composites (SFCs) on deciduous teeth. Methods: A comprehensive literature search according to the PRISMA checklist was manually and electronically performed by two independent reviewers through the following databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Embase, to include in vitro studies comparing GICs and SFCs bond strength values of restorations on primary teeth. In addition, three groups of meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models. Results: Three articles meeting the inclusion criteria were selected and subjected to both qualitative and quantitative assessment. No statistically significant difference was found between SFC versus GIC; however, both groups significantly differed with conventional flowable composites (CFs). Conclusions: Despite the absence of significant difference in bond strength values, SFCs may be considered a valid alternative to GICs in the restoration of deciduous teeth, although CFs proved better in vitro performances.

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 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.

scholarly journals Adhesion of Two Bonding Systems to Air-Abraded or Bur-Abraded Human Enamel Surfaces

2008 ◽  
Vol 02 (03) ◽  
pp. 167-175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdulkadir Sengun ◽  
Hasan Orucoglu ◽  
Ilknur Ipekdal ◽  
Fusun Ozer
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Air Abrasion ◽  
Adhesive Resin ◽  
Bonding Performance ◽  
Human Enamel ◽  
Bond Strengths ◽  
Bonding Systems

ABSTRACTObjectives: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate whether mechanical alteration of the enamel surfaces with air abrasion and bur abrasion techniques could enhance the bonding performance of a three step and a self etching adhesive resin systems to enamel.Methods: 126 extracted lower human incisor teeth were used. The teeth were divided into three groups including 40 teeth each. First group; teeth were used as control and no preparation was made on enamel surfaces, 2nd group; outer enamel surfaces were air abraded, 3rd group; outer enamel surfaces were abraded mechanically with a diamond fissure bur. Cylinder composite resin blocks were bonded to the buccal enamel surfaces with two bonding systems (20 specimens in each group). Bond strengths to enamel surfaces were measured at a cross-head speed of 1 mm/min. The data were analyzed by ANOVA and Duncan Tests. To examine interface composite resin/enamel surfaces at scanning electron microscopy, remaining 6 teeth were used. Fracture analysis was performed using an optical stereomicroscope.Results: Bond strengths values of Solid Bond were significantly higher than bond strengths of Clearfil SE Bond for all types of enamel (P<.05). Shear bond strength values obtained with Solid Bond (three step system) to three types of enamel surfaces [air-abraded (30.25±7.00 MPa), bur-abraded (29.07±3.53 MPa), control (31.74±7.35 MPa)] were close to each other (P>.05). The macroscopic mode of failures for bonding systems, SB and SE Bond appeared to be adhesive and cohesive in nature.Conclusions: In order to get better bond strength values with self etching systems, it is advisable to prepare enamel surfaces with bur or air abrasion, but it enamel preparation is not necessary for three step systems. (Eur J Dent 2008;2:167-175)

In vitro Comparative Evaluation of Various Restorative Materials used for restoring Class III Cavities in Deciduous Anterior Teeth: A Clinical Study

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (12) ◽  
pp. 1022-1026 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deepak Khandelwal ◽  
Shweta Nihalani ◽  
Harsh Priyank ◽  
Ankita Verma ◽  
Esha Chaudhary
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Evaluation ◽  
Primary Teeth ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Class Iii ◽  
Anterior Teeth ◽  
Carious Lesions ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Materials Used

ABSTRACT Introduction Beauty standards in today's modernized world scenario are formed by well-aligned and well-designed bright white teeth. One of the major reasons behind patients reporting to dental clinics is pain. Caries in the anterior primary teeth forms one of the major concerns from a restorative point of view. Very few studies are quoted in literature which stresses on the follow-up of anterior restorations in primary teeth. Hence, we evaluated and compared the efficacy of composite resin and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RGIC) for class III restorations in primary anterior teeth. Materials and methods The present study was conducted in the pediatric dental wing and included a total of 80 patients aged 3 to 5½ years who reported with the chief complaint of carious lesions in the primary anterior teeth. Patients having minimal of a pair of similar appearing small carious lesions on the same proximal surfaces of the deciduous maxillary incisors were included for the study. All the patients were randomly divided into two groups: One in which RGIC restoration was done and other in which composite restoration was done. Cavity preparation was done and filling of the cavity with the restorative materials was carried out. Assessment of the restorations was done at 4, 8, and 12 months time following criteria given by Ryge et al. All the results were analyzed by Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software. Mann–Whitney test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to evaluate the level of significance; p value less than 0.05 was considered as significant. Results For composite and RGIC restorations, the mean score for anatomic shape was 1.21 and 1.10 respectively. While comparing the clinical parameters, nonsignificant results were obtained between composite and RGIC restorative materials at 4-, 8-, and 12-month interval. On comparing the clinical parameters for individual restorative materials at different time intervals, statistically significant results were obtained only for anatomical shape and form. Conclusion Both RGIC and composite resin restorative materials showed acceptable clinical outcomes after 12 months of follow-up in deciduous anterior teeth. In restoring class III restorations in primary anterior teeth, both the restorative materials showed similar outcome. Clinical significance How to cite this article Priyank H, Verma A, Gupta K, Chaudhary E, Khandelwal D, Nihalani S. In vitro Comparative Evaluation of Various Restorative Materials used for restoring Class III Cavities in Deciduous Anterior Teeth: A Clinical Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(12):1022-1026.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document