An evalution of compressive strength of newer nanocomposite: An in vitro study

Hegde, Mithra N; Hegde, Priyadarshini; Bhandary, Shruthi; Deepika, K

doi:10.4103/0972-0707.80734

Cited by 45 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Incorporated nanofillers in adhesives compositions increased resistance against fracture and wear, provided higher dimensional stability and produced higher SBS than conventional adhesives 20 . Other studies reported comparable 21 , 22 or lower but still acceptable shear bond strength, 23 , 24 when nanofilled adhesives were used for bonding orthodontic brackets.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of nanotechnology in self-etch bonding systems on the shear bond strength of stainless steel orthodontic brackets

Hammad¹,

El-Wassefy

Maher

et al. 2017

Dental Press J. Orthod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the effect of silica dioxide (SiO2) nanofillers in different bonding systems on shear bond strength (SBS) and mode of failure of orthodontic brackets at two experimental times. Methods: Ninety-six intact premolars were divided into four groups: A) Conventional acid-etch and primer Transbond XT; B) Transbond Plus self-etch primer; and two self-etch bonding systems reinforced with silica dioxide nanofiller at different concentrations: C) Futurabond DC at 1%; D) Optibond All-in-One at 7%. Each group was allocated into two subgroups (n = 12) according to experimental time (12 and 24 hours). SBS test was performed using a universal testing machine. ARI scores were determined under a stereomicroscope. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) were used to determine the size and distribution of nanofillers. One-way ANOVA was used to compare SBS followed by the post-hoc Tukey test. The chi-square test was used to evaluate ARI scores.Results: Mean SBS of Futurabond DC and Optibond All-in-One were significantly lower than conventional system, and there were no significant differences between means SBS obtained with all self-etch bonding systems used in the study. Lower ARI scores were found for Futurabond DC and Optibond All-in-One. There was no significant difference of SBS and ARI obtained at either time points for all bonding systems. Relative homogeneous distribution of the fillers was observed with the bonding systems.Conclusion: Two nanofilled systems revealed the lowest bond strengths, but still clinically acceptable and less adhesive was left on enamel. It is advisable not to load the brackets immediately to the maximum.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of nanotechnology in self-etch bonding systems on the shear bond strength of stainless steel orthodontic brackets

Hammad¹,

El-Wassefy

Maher

et al. 2017

Dental Press J. Orthod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This combination reduces the interstitial spacing of the filler particles, thus increasing filler loading. [ 16 ] This is reflected in their higher fracture toughness. The high-viscosity bulk-fill nanocomposite; in addition to having the above-mentioned properties of a nanocomposite, is said to contain two novel methacrylate monomers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fracture resistance of posterior teeth restored with high-viscosity bulk-fill resin composites in comparison to the incremental placement technique

Hegde

Sali

2017

J Conserv Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim:Comparative evaluation of the fracture resistance of maxillary premolar teeth restored with two high-viscosity bulk-fill composites and incrementally placed composite.Materials and Methods:Seventy-five freshly extracted maxillary premolar teeth were selected. Fifteen specimens served as positive control (Group 1). Mesio-occluso-distal cavity preparation was prepared on the rest of the specimens. These specimens were further divided into four groups: unrestored teeth (Group 2), teeth restored with incrementally placed nanocomposite (Group 3), teeth restored with high-viscosity bulk-fill giomer (Group 4), and teeth restored with high-viscosity bulk-fill nanocomposite (Group 5). The specimens were then subjected to compressive axial load using Instron universal testing machine. Data were analyzed using data were analyzed using Statistical package for social sciences software (SPSS v 20.0, IBM Corp.).Results:The positive control group exhibited highest fracture resistance (1104.70 ± 122.2 N). There was no statistically significant difference seen in between the incrementally placed nanocomposite and high-viscosity nanocomposite (P > 0.05). The fracture resistance values displayed by the high-viscosity bulk-fill giomer were found to be statistically lower than the other two groups.Conclusion:High-viscosity bulk-fill nanocomposite may substitute incrementally placed nanocomposite with respect to fracture resistance.

show abstract

“…Nano-particles in CD contain methacrylic group linked to polysiloxane backbone. 22 Siloxanes, which are chemically similar to glass and ceramic, increase bond strengths. In the present study, combination with CD composite resin showed the highest bond strength (16.2 ± 4.2MPa) in the composite resin groups.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A study on the compatibility between one-bottle dentin adhesives and composite resins using micro-shear bond strength

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThis study was performed to determine whether the combined use of one-bottle self-etch adhesives and composite resins from same manufacturers have better bond strengths than combinations of adhesive and resins from different manufacturers.Materials and Methods25 experimental micro-shear bond test groups were made from combinations of five dentin adhesives and five composite resins with extracted human molars stored in saline for 24 hr. Testing was performed using the wire-loop method and a universal testing machine. Bond strength data was statistically analyzed using two way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's post hoc test.ResultsTwo way ANOVA revealed significant differences for the factors of dentin adhesives and composite resins, and significant interaction effect (p < 0.001). All combinations with Xeno V (Dentsply De Trey) and Clearfil S3 Bond (Kuraray Dental) adhesives showed no significant differences in micro-shear bond strength, but other adhesives showed significant differences depending on the composite resin (p < 0.05). Contrary to the other adhesives, Xeno V and BondForce (Tokuyama Dental) had higher bond strengths with the same manufacturer's composite resin than other manufacturer's composite resin.ConclusionsNot all combinations of adhesive and composite resin by same manufacturers failed to show significantly higher bond strengths than mixed manufacturer combinations.

show abstract

An evalution of compressive strength of newer nanocomposite: An in vitro study

Cited by 45 publications

References 10 publications

Effect of nanotechnology in self-etch bonding systems on the shear bond strength of stainless steel orthodontic brackets

Effect of nanotechnology in self-etch bonding systems on the shear bond strength of stainless steel orthodontic brackets

Fracture resistance of posterior teeth restored with high-viscosity bulk-fill resin composites in comparison to the incremental placement technique

A study on the compatibility between one-bottle dentin adhesives and composite resins using micro-shear bond strength

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About