In vivo versus in vitro microtensile bond strength of axial versus gingival cavity preparation walls in Class II resin-based composite restorations

Purk, John H.; Dusevich, Vladimir; Glaros, Alan G.; Spencer, Paulette; Eick, J. David

doi:10.14219/jada.archive.2004.0150

Cited by 36 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…At the superficial dentin, the hybrid layer formation is more than resin tags as the number of dentinal tubules in proportion to inter-tubular dentin is lesser than that at deep dentin (13) . These findings were in agreement with several authors (14)(15)(16)(17)(18) . On the other hand, these findings were in disagreement with Lopes et al, 2009 (19) who concluded that bond strength to deep dentin in vivo was similar to shallow dentin.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

In-vivo Bond Degradation Resistance and In-vitro Degree of Conversion of Bulk Fill Versus Nano Filled Resin Composite Restoratives

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: This study was conducted to evaluate bulk fill and nanohybrid resin composite at different cavity depth and after different testing periods. Materials & methods:Standardized simple box class II occluso-mesial (OM) cavities were prepared in the selected first maxillary premolar in each quadrant. The cavity depth was adjusted to be either 2mm or 4mm in each patient. For the bulkfill composite, both the two and four-millimeters cavities, one increment of the resin composite material (Xtra-fil) was packed inside the cavity while for the nanohybrid resin composite (Grandio), the four millimeters cavities were filled incrementally by packing two increments of 2mm thickness while for the two millimeters cavities one increment (2mm) was packed to fill the cavity and light cured for 20 seconds, finished, polished and left for the assigned time. The restored tooth was extracted atraumatically and teeth were sectioned to produce beam-shaped specimens of (1 ± 0.1 mm 2 ). The beam specimens were attached with cyanoacrylate gel to fit the Instron Universal testing machine. The tensile load was applied at a cross-head speed of 0.5mm/minute until specimen failure occurred. At this point the failure load in Newton was recorded.Results: Cavity depth of 2 mm showed the highest significant mean microtensile bond strength compared with that of 4 mm. Nanohybrid resin composite showed the highest significant mean micro tensile compared with Bulkfill resin composite. The testing period of 24 hours showed highest significant mean microtensile bond strength that one tested after 3 and 6 months. Conclusion:(1) cavity depth has an apparent influence on tensile bond strength of the tested restoratives to dentin. (2) Microtensile bond strength of the tested restorations deteriorates by aging.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

In-vivo Bond Degradation Resistance and In-vitro Degree of Conversion of Bulk Fill Versus Nano Filled Resin Composite Restoratives

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When evaluating the influence of different gererations of adhesives (third self-etch, fourth total etch, and fifth one bottle) in combination with direct composite and indirect ceramic restorations, the former multistep adhesive generations produced higher bond strengths, while the pre-curing of the adhesive before cementation of indirect restorations also increased the bond strength. 77 In a similar study configuration, 78 with simplified cavity design, the dual bonding concept once again noticeably increased the bond strength at buccal walls while reducing MTBS at pulpal walls. When interposing a layer of low-viscosity resin composite, the bond strength measurements were significantly lowered as a result of cohesive fractures in the low-filled liner.…”

Section: Microtensile and Shear Testsmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…74,75 Overall, less microleakage was observed at enamel margins compared to cervical dentin. 73,74,[76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83] When comparing two existing curing modes of a comparable composite technology, the light-curing material produced less leakage than the self-curing one.…”

Section: Comparison Of Restorative and Layering Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Full Issue PDF

2013

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How to Register as an Individual or Institutional UserIt's easy to register. Simply choose a unique user name and password and complete our registration form at http://www.jopdentonline.org/action/registration. You will receive an e-mail confirming your user name and password shortly after registering. Registration is not required for individuals to use this site but is required to see the full text of a non-public access article. Using the User Profile to Customize Your Online ExperienceOnce you have registered, you can customize your profile in the User Profile section of the site. Within the User Profile section you can: Update your profile information, including your user name and password, address details and account preferences, manage your favorite articles, sign up for journal e-mail alerts, view saved searches, and manage your subscriptions and online access (for institutional subscribers only). For additional assistance with your profile, complete our feedback form at http://www.jopdentonline.org/ feedback/show Your user name and password can be sent to the e-mail address provided during the registration process at any time. Follow the instructions at http://www.jopdentonline.org/action/requestResetPassword to obtain your user name and password by e-mail. Aim and ScopeOperative Dentistry publishes articles that ad vance the prac tice of operative dentistry. The scope of the journal includes conservation and restoration of teeth; the sci en tifi c foundation of operative dental ther a py; dental materials; den tal education; and the social, po lit i cal, and economic aspects of dental prac tice. Review papers, book reviews, letters and classified ads for faculty positions are also pub lished.

show abstract

“…Ao avaliarmos a resistência de união de um sistema adesivo em diferentes paredes cavitárias de um preparo temos uma modelo mais real (CARVALHO et al, 1994;PURK et al, 2004) e podemos obter valores de resistência de união mais próximos aos valores clínicos (DOS SANTOS et al ., 2004;NIKOLAENKO et al, 2004).…”

Section: 63unclassified

Comparação da resistência de união de diferentes superfícies dentinárias na obtenção dos espécimes para microtração

Agulhari¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In vivo versus in vitro microtensile bond strength of axial versus gingival cavity preparation walls in Class II resin-based composite restorations

Cited by 36 publications

References 28 publications

In-vivo Bond Degradation Resistance and In-vitro Degree of Conversion of Bulk Fill Versus Nano Filled Resin Composite Restoratives

In-vivo Bond Degradation Resistance and In-vitro Degree of Conversion of Bulk Fill Versus Nano Filled Resin Composite Restoratives

Full Issue PDF

Comparação da resistência de união de diferentes superfícies dentinárias na obtenção dos espécimes para microtração

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About