Six-month evaluation of a resin/dentin interface created by methacrylate and silorane-based materials

Sampaio, Renata Kirita Doi; Wang, Linda; Carvalho, Rodrigo Varella de; García, E. Navarro; Andrade, Andréa Mello de; Klein-Júnior, Celso Afonso; Moura, Sandra Kiss

doi:10.1590/1678-7757201302329

Cited by 11 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This result was also observed in the study by Kamel et al [28], in which the Single Bond adhesive showed no significant difference in bond strength to dentin in the period of 24 h, 3 months, and 6 months of water storage. Similar results were obtained in other studies, where water storage had no influence on bond strength for a period of 3 months [29,30], or even 6 months [31] or 12 months [32]. This can be explained by the ability of the Single Bond 2 adhesive system to completely infiltrate demineralized dentin.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Dentin bond strength of an adhesive system irradiated with an Nd:YAG laser

Ruschel

Malta²,

Monteiro

2016

Laser Phys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength of an adhesive system applied to dentin, followed by Nd:YAG laser irradiation. Twenty-two recently extracted third molars were divided into four groups (n = 5). In the G1 and G2 groups, the adhesive system was applied conventionally, and in groups G3 and G4, the adhesive system was irradiated with an Nd:YAG laser (100 J cm −2 ). The specimens were stored in distilled water at 37 °C, those in groups G1 and G3 for 24 h, and those in groups G2 and G4 for 3 months. Two teeth from groups G1 and G3 were used for observation of the hybrid layer, using a confocal microscope (n = 1). The teeth were submitted to a microtensile bond strength test. Analysis of the type of fracture was performed using a stereoscope (40×). The results for microtensile bond strength (MPa) and standard deviation (±SD) were: G1-31.68 (5.14); G2-37.88 (±5.04); G3-35.32 (±8.79); G4-31.53 (±9.01). There were no significant differences among the groups (p > 0.05). Adhesive failure was predominant in all the groups. The Nd:YAG laser irradiation of the adhesives did not influence dentin bond strength during the periods of 24 h or 3 months of storage in distilled water.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Dentin bond strength of an adhesive system irradiated with an Nd:YAG laser

Ruschel

Malta²,

Monteiro

2016

Laser Phys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our results were compatible with data of a previous study that was done by Adebayo et al ( 5 ), and showed higher bond strengths of the two-step self-etch adhesive than Silorane System Adhesive. But this finding is opposite with the results of Giacobbi and Vandewalle ( 18 ), Koliniotou-Koumpia et al ( 21 ), Sampaio et al ( 22 ). These authors said there is no difference between Silorane System Adhesive and a methacrylate-based adhesive system.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 59%

“…On the other hand our scale for evaluating of bond strength was shear bond strength similar to studies that performed by Ustunkol et al ( 17 ), Koliniotou-Koumpia et al ( 21 ), and Barta et al ( 19 ). This scale is one of the most common criterions for this purpose whereas the test used in Sampaio et al ( 22 ) and Giacobbi and Vandewalle ( 18 ) researches was micro-tensile bond strength that is sensitive to minute changes in measurements.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the shear bond strength of enamel and dentin with or without etching: A comparative study between dimethacrylate-based and silorane-based adhesives

Hajizadeh¹,

Nemati-Karimooy²,

Nasseh³

et al. 2015

J Clin Exp Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Silorane-based composites and their specific self-etch adhesive were introduced to conquest the polymerization shrinkage of methacrylate-based composites. It has been shown that additional etching of enamel and dentin can improve the bond strength of self-etch methacrylate-based adhesives but this claim is not apparent about silorane-based adhesives. Our objective was to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of enamel and dentin between silorane-based adhesive resin and a methacrylate-based resin with or without additional etching. Material and Methods 40 sound human premolars were prepared and divided into two groups: 1- Filtek P60 composite and Clearfil SE Bond adhesive; 2- Filtek P90 composite and Silorane adhesive. Each group divided into two subgroups: with or without additional etching. For additional etching, 37% acid phosphoric was applied before bonding procedure. A cylinder of the composite was bonded to the surface. After 24 hours storage and 500 thermo cycling between 5-55°C, shear bond strength was assessed with the cross head speed of 0.5 mm/min. Then, bonded surfaces were observed under stereomicroscope to determine the failure mode. Data were analyzed with two-way ANOVA and Fischer exact test. Results Shear bond strength of Filtek P60 composite was significantly higher than Filtek P90 composite both in enamel and dentin surfaces (P<0.05). However, additional etching had no significant effect on shear bond strength in enamel or dentin for each of the composites (P>0.05). There was no interaction between composite type and additional etching (P>0.05). Failure pattern was mainly adhesive and no significant correlation was found between failure and composite type or additional etching (P>0.05). Conclusions Shear bond strength of methacrylate-based composite was significantly higher than silorane-based composite both in enamel and dentin surfaces and additional etching had no significant effect on shear bond strength in enamel or dentin for each of the composites. The mode of failure had no meaningful relation to the type of composite and etching factor. Key words:Shear bond strength, adhesive, composite resin, silorane, methacrylate.

show abstract

“…The silorane-based system performed similarly to that of methacrylate-based materials on dentin. 16 On the other hand, in another in vitro study evaluating the marginal adaptation of a methacrylate-based composite and a silorane-based composite, the siloranebased composite exhibited significantly lower shrinkage forces and better marginal adaptation than did the methacrylate-based composite, Filtek Supreme XT. 17 Although the results of those in vitro studies can help to predict clinical effectiveness of restorative resins, the best way is to conduct clinical trials.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three-year Clinical Evaluation of Different Restorative Resins in Class I Restorations

Yazici

Ustunkol

Özgünaltay

et al. 2014

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Except for the better marginal adaptation that packable resin composite showed, siloranebased restorative, nanofilled resin, and packable resin composite resulted in similar clinical performance in restoring Class I cavities after 3 years. SUMMARYThe aim of the present study was to evaluate the three-year clinical performance of a nanofilled resin composite, a packable resin composite, and silorane-based resin restorations in Class I occlusal cavities. Twenty-eight patients with at least three similar-sized occlusal lesions in molar teeth participated in the study. A total of 84 Class I occlusal restorations were placed: 28 with nanofilled resin composite (Filtek Supreme), 28 with packable resin composite (P60), and 28 with silorane-based resin (Filtek Silorane). Filtek Supreme and P60 were used with their respective etch-and-rinse adhesive system, Adper Single Bond 2, and Filtek Silorane was used with its respective self-etch adhesive, Filtek Silorane Adhesive. All restorations were placed by the same operator. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, at six months, and annually for three years according to modified US Public Health Service criteria by two calibrated examiners who did not know which restorative resin had been used. The three restorative materials for each category were compared using the v 2 test at a significance level of 0.05. Cochran's Q test was used to compare the changes across the five time points for each restorative material. McNemar's test followed by Bonferroni adjustment was used when significance differences were found. At the end of the three years, 60 restorations were evaluated in 20 patients, with a recall rate of 71.4%. The retention rate was 100% for all restorative resins. Eight restorations from the P60 group, ten from the Filtek Supreme group, and nine from the Filtek Silorane group were rated Bravo for marginal discoloration. For marginal adapta-

show abstract

Six-month evaluation of a resin/dentin interface created by methacrylate and silorane-based materials

Cited by 11 publications

References 25 publications

Dentin bond strength of an adhesive system irradiated with an Nd:YAG laser

Dentin bond strength of an adhesive system irradiated with an Nd:YAG laser

Evaluating the shear bond strength of enamel and dentin with or without etching: A comparative study between dimethacrylate-based and silorane-based adhesives

Three-year Clinical Evaluation of Different Restorative Resins in Class I Restorations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About