Bond strength of a resin cement to dentin using the resin coating technique

Santos-Daroz, Claudia Batitucci dos; Oliveira, Marcelo Tavares de; Góes, Mário Fernando de; Nikaido, Toru; Tagami, Junji; Giannini, Marcelo

doi:10.1590/s1806-83242008000300002

Cited by 13 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 7 publications

(13 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The increase in bond strength of Panavia F 2.0 is in line with the result of previous works 3,5,6,25) . The conventional application of this resin cement with ED Primer II as bonding agent could not result in high bond strength values to dentin 16,21) .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…The use of resin coating also facilitates the cementation process and reduces the postoperative sensibility, since the dentin sealing and hybridization are achieved immediately after cavity preparation [2][3][4] . The recommended procedure for resin coating consists of the application of a two-step self-etching bonding system and a low viscosity composite resin to dentin 5,6) . Impression taking and placement of the provisional restoration are performed while dentin surface is covered under the resin coating.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of resin coating on bond strength of self-adhesive resin cements to dentin

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated the effect of resin coating (COA) on dentin bond strength (BS) of five resin cements (RC). Ten groups were tested, according to RC and COA combinations. RCs were applied onto prepolymerized resin discs, which were bonded to dentin surfaces. Teeth were stored in water for 24 h, subjected to 5,000 thermocycles and sectioned to obtain beams, which were tested in tension. The COA increased the BS for Panavia F2.0, RelyX Unicem, and RelyX Unicem 2, whereas no changes in BS were observed for two other RCs; Clearfil SA Cement, which showed the lowest BS among groups with COA and G-Cem, which showed the highest BS among RCs without COA. COA can increase the BS of RC depending on the type of RC.

show abstract

“…However, when Weilbull distribution is considered, both mechanical cleansing methods provided less reliable adhesion results as opposed to other methods based on air-abrasion. Similarly, Santos et al have reported negative effect of the use of pumice on the bond 11 strength of the resin to fresh dentin due to obscuration of the dentinal tubule openings by pumice residues [31]. Thus, the use of air-abrasion still seems to be more beneficial to optimize adhesion of resin cement to IDS.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Effect of mechanical and air-particle cleansing protocols of provisional cement on immediate dentin sealing layer and subsequent adhesion of resin composite cement

Özcan

Lamperti

2015

Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Originally published at: Özcan, Mutlu; Lamperti, Sofia (2015). Effect of mechanical and air-particle cleansing protocols of provisional cement on immediate dentin sealing layer and subsequent adhesion of resin composite cement. Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology, 29(24) Zürich, 2 Abstract: Immediate dentin sealing (IDS) could avoid contamination of dentin from impression material and provisional cement but prior to final cementation of indirect restorations, removal of the provisional cement may damage the IDS. The objectives of this study were to investigate the effect of mechanical and air-particle cleansing protocols of provisional cement on IDS layer and subsequent adhesion of resin composite cement. The cuspal dentin surfaces of human third molars (N=18, n quadrant =72) were exposed by a low speed diamond saw under water cooling and conditioned with an adhesive system based on 3-step etch and rinse technique (OptiBond FL). Provisional cement (Freegenol) was applied on each specimen.They were then randomly divided into 6 subgroups where the provisional cement was removed either by 1)Air-borne particle abrasion with 50 µm Al 2 O 3 particles at 2 bar (AL2), 2) Air-borne particle abrasion with 50µm Al 2 O 3 particles at 3.5 bar (AL3.5), 3) Air-borne particle abrasion with 30 µm SiO 2 particles at 2 bar (SL2), 4) Air-borne particle abrasion with 30 µm SiO 2 particles at 3.5 bar (SL3.5), 5) Prophylaxy paste (Cleanic) (PP) or 6) Pumice-water slurry (PW) at 1500 rpm for 15 s. The dentin surface on each tooth was assigned to 4 quadrants and each quadrant received the cleansing methods in a clockwise sequence. The non-contaminated and non-cleansed teeth acted as the control (N=3, n quadrant =12) (C). Two separate teeth, contaminated and cleansed according to 6 cleansing protocols, were allocated for Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) analysis (x2000). The dentin surfaces in each quadrant received resin composite luting cement (Variolink II, Ivoclar Vivadent) incrementally in a polyethylene mould (diameter: 1 mm 2 ; height: 4 mm) and photo-polymerized. The specimens were stored in distilled water for 24 hours at 37ºC until the testing procedures and then shear force was applied to the adhesive interface until failure occurred in a Universal Testing Machine (0.5 mm/min). Microshear bond (µSBS) was calculated by dividing the maximum load (N) by the bonding surface area of the resin cement. Failure types were analyzed using optical microscope and SEM. Data (MPa) were analyzed using one-way ANOVA (α=0.05). Two-parameterWeibull distribution values including the Weibull modulus, scale (m) and shape ( 0 ), values were calculated.Mean µSBS results (MPa) showed significant difference between the experimental groups (P=0.011) and were in descending order as follows: C (8±2. dentin and the adhesive resin, which is a combination of adhesive and cohesive failure in the adhesive resin. Cohesive failure in the dentin was not observed in any of the groups. Weibull distribution presented lower shape ( 0 ) for C (3.9), AL2 (3...

show abstract

“…HEMA is one of the main components used in dental restorative materials because of its relevant physico‐chemical and mechanical characteristic (Santos‐Daroz et al. 2008; Garcia et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate on Streptococcus spp. biofilms

DʼErcole¹,

Giulio²,

Grande³

et al. 2011

Letters in Applied Microbiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: The effect of different concentrations of 2‐hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) was evaluated on biofilm formation and preformed biofilm of Streptococcus mitis, Streptococcus mutans and Streptococcus oralis, alone or combined to each other. Methods and Results: Twofold serial dilution of HEMA ranged from 12 to 0·75 mmol l−1 was added to Streptococcal broth cultures and mature biofilms in 96‐well‐microtitre plates to evaluate bacterial biomass and cell viability. HEMA affected the Streptococcal population in a strain‐specific way producing few significant effects. A reduction on biofilm formation and a detachment of preformed biofilm was recorded in Strep. mitis ATCC 6249, whereas in mixed cultures, the monomer expressed a general aggregative effect on mature biofilms. A reduction in cell viability was also recorded in an HEMA‐concentration‐dependent way in each experimental condition studied. Conclusions: These results suggest that the HEMA prevalent effects are both the reduction of bacterial adhesion to a polystyrene surface and the increase in dead cells also characterized by an aggregative status. Significance and Impact of the Study: Understanding the potential effect of HEMA, released from resin‐based materials, on oral bacteria may furnish information for surveillance of the risk reduction in secondary caries via hindering biofilm generation.

show abstract

“…It has been reported that resin coatings minimized pulp irritation as well as improved the bond strength between resin cement and dentin 10,11) . Recently, thin-film coating materials based on allin-one adhesive technology were introduced for resin coating of indirect restorations 12) .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of coating root dentin surfaces with adhesive materials

et al. 2009

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of coating root dentin surfaces with adhesives vis-à-vis the prevention of root dentin demineralization. Root dentin surface was ground with #600 SiC, and then either a single coat of Clearfil SE Bond (SE), Clearfil Tri-S Bond (TS), G-Bond (GB), Hybrid Bond (HB-1), or two coats of HB (HB-2) were applied. Specimens were immersed in an artificial demineralizing solution, then sectioned through the center of the root and polished. Thickness of the coating layer and depth of the demineralized dentin layer were observed under a confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM). Nanohardness values of the coating layer and underlying dentin were measured using a nanoindentation tester. All obtained data were statistically analyzed. Dentin demineralization was not observed in the surface coating groups with the exception of HB-1, and nanohardness of the underlying dentin was comparable to that of normal dentin. Based on the results obtained, it seemed that coating root dentin surfaces with an adhesive material is a promising good practice to prevent demineralization.

show abstract

Bond strength of a resin cement to dentin using the resin coating technique

Cited by 13 publications

References 7 publications

Influence of resin coating on bond strength of self-adhesive resin cements to dentin

Effect of mechanical and air-particle cleansing protocols of provisional cement on immediate dentin sealing layer and subsequent adhesion of resin composite cement

Effect of 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate on Streptococcus spp. biofilms

Effects of coating root dentin surfaces with adhesive materials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About