Evaluation of marginal failures of dental composite restorations by acoustic emission analysis

Gu, Ja-Uk; Choi, Nak–Sam

doi:10.4012/dmj.2012-262

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Different methods of composite evaluation success and functioning conditions are continuously developing and improving. Except for the used clinical criteria, techniques, such as spectrometric analyses or acoustic emission analysis, could be effectively implemented into clinical practice for the purpose of non-destructive composite restorations evaluation [42,43].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

C-factor and restoration volume as derivates of composite fillings: clinical success after 12 months of monitoring

Voitovych¹,

Goncharuk-Khomyn²,

Kostenko³

et al. 2021

jos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Relevant literature data represents high clinical success rates of direct composite restorations, even though some cavity-associated parameters remain under in vivo and in vitro research as factors associated with possible failure of restorations. Objectives: To evaluate possible influence of restoration volume, configuration factor, and its' derivates on clini cal success of composite fillings placed into class I and class II cavities after 12 months of monitoring. Material and methods: Design of the study was based on comparative analysis of restoration success rates registered among two groups of patients with class I and class II cavity configurations and further in-depth analysis of cavityrelated parameters. Each cavity was scanned intraorally after preparation phase and after restoration placement. Obtained scan-files were imported in *.stl format into specialized software. Calculation of exact C-factor values was provided as ratio of bonded surfaces to un-bonded surfaces, and objectified considering areas of the surfaces. Results: Correlation between C-factor parameter (as ratio of bonded surfaces to un-bonded ones) and overall level of composite direct restoration failure reached r = 0.18 (р > 0.05). Such association increased to r = 0.44 (р < 0.05) when C-factor was quantified as ratio of absolute surface area of bonded cavity walls to absolute surface area of free cavity walls. Volume of provided restorations achieved the highest level of correlation with noted clinical success rates of composite direct fillings after 12 months of service (r = 0.59; р < 0.05). Conclusions: C-factor itself, while being evaluated clinically only without the use of laboratorial equipment and detailed calculational algorithms, could not be interpreted as dominant predictor for restoration success decrease pattern after 1-year monitoring. Volumetric cavity parameters and its derivates provide greater influence on the successful outcome of clinical parameters after 12 months of restorations functioning.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

C-factor and restoration volume as derivates of composite fillings: clinical success after 12 months of monitoring

Voitovych¹,

Goncharuk-Khomyn²,

Kostenko³

et al. 2021

jos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…. However, these methods only provide post-evaluation of the interface after debonding has already occurred by polymerization shrinkage stress.Recent studies using this technique have confirmed that a slower rate of polymerization [57] , better bonding surface, low-shrinkage composites, and lower C-factor [58,59,60,61] , are strongly associated with better resistance to interfacial debonding as evidenced by fewer Acoustic emission analysis (AE) events.The high-viscosity bulk-fill composites may not have advantages over the high-viscosity conventional composite. In contrast, compared with the low-viscosity conventional composite, the low-viscosity bulk-fill composites showed better performance in terms of shrinkage stress and debondingbehavior [62,63,64] .…”

Section: For Nanoleakagementioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation Ofmicrotensile Bond Strength and Nanoleakage After Double Layer Adhesive Coating Application Using Bulk Fill Composite

Labib¹,

Nabih²,

elkady³

2018

IJAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Energy Dispersive X-ray spectrometry, Filtek Bulk fill composite resin, Heliobond, Scanning Electron microscope, Scotch bond universal.Aim:The present study used toevaluatenanoleakage and microtensile bond strength after double layer adhesive coating application. The tensile bond strength of an adhesive system is mostly influenced by the hybrid layer, followed by resin tags in the dentinal tubule and finally by chemical bonding. However, porosities can be observed at the bottom of hybrid layers. This phenomenon was termed "nanoleakage" Sano et al,They had seen incomplete penetration of hybrid layers during adhesive bonding techniques.Thenanoleakage effect has been discussed to be one factor negatively affecting the quality of dentinal bonding. Influence of nanoleakage on microtensile bond strength was determined using different visualization techniques. For instance, resin-dentin specimens were prepared and immersed in silver nitrate that penetrated into nanoleakage. Subsequently, specimens were broken at the adhesive interface (commonly using tensile testing), and nanoleakage was visualized indirectly on the exposed surface using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). It has been postulated that, between polymerization shrinkage and microtensile bond strengths ( TBS) a highly significant correlation was found because forces developed during the polymerization of dental restorative composites placed in a restricted setting, cause tension in the material, with possible subsequent distortion of the bond to the tooth. Material and methods: 40 human molars stored in deionized water will used. Teeth will be divided into four equal groups according to application mode (self-etch vs. Etch-and-rinse mode). group A: using filtek TM bulk fill with single bond universal adhesive (self-etching mode), then application of hydrophopic resin coating (Heliobond). group B: using filtek TM bulk fill with single bond universal adhesive (self-etching mode), without application of hydrophobic resin coating. group C: using filtek TM bulk fill with single bond universal adhesive (etch and rinse mode), then application of hydrophobic resin coating. group D: using filtek TM bulk-fill with single bond universal adhesive (etch-and-rinse mode), without application of hydrophobic resin coating.

show abstract

Waveguide attachment influences on acoustic emission evaluation for marginal disintegration of dental composite restorations

Park

Han

et al. 2013

J Mech Sci Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluation of marginal failures of dental composite restorations by acoustic emission analysis

Cited by 6 publications

References 19 publications

C-factor and restoration volume as derivates of composite fillings: clinical success after 12 months of monitoring

C-factor and restoration volume as derivates of composite fillings: clinical success after 12 months of monitoring

Evaluation Ofmicrotensile Bond Strength and Nanoleakage After Double Layer Adhesive Coating Application Using Bulk Fill Composite

Waveguide attachment influences on acoustic emission evaluation for marginal disintegration of dental composite restorations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About