Methacrylate- and silorane-based composite restorations: Hardness, depth of cure and interfacial gap formation as a function of the energy dose

D’Alpino, Paulo Henrique Perlatti; Bechtold, Janaina; Santos, Priscila Jaques dos; Alonso, Roberta Caroline Bruschi; Hipólito, Vinícius Di; Silikas, Nick; Rodrigues, Flávia Pires

doi:10.1016/j.dental.2011.08.397

Cited by 38 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…9,10 To protect the tooth structure from these risks, newer restorative systems were developed. Although an underperformed bonding approach has been claimed to influence the interfacial quality more than the differences in the resin composite formulations, 11 different restorative systems (adhesive / resin composite) were compared when evaluating the resistance to fracture in premolars. In the present study, the only restorative system that restored the resistance to fracture of teeth to levels similar to that of the intact group was SB/P60 (p < 0.05).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fracture resistance of teeth restored with different resin-based restorative systems

et al. 2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the fracture resistance of teeth restored with resin composite. Forty-eight maxillary premolar teeth were chosen and randomly divided to six groups: G1 (control): sound teeth; G2: MOD preparation, unrestored; G3: MOD + Adper Single Bond 2 / P60; G4: MOD + Adper Easy One / P60; G5: MOD + P90 restorative system; G6: MOD + Adper Easy One / P90 Bond / P90. Specimens were subjected to compressive axial loading (0.5 mm/min). Flexural strength and the modulus of elasticity were also tested (n = 7). The only statistical equivalence with sound teeth was noted for G3 (p < 0.05). Flexural strength and the modulus of elasticity varied among the composites tested (n = 10). The reestablishment of the resistance to fracture in premolars subjected to Class II MOD preparations is restorative-system-dependent. The silorane restorative system is not able to recover the resistance to fracture.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fracture resistance of teeth restored with different resin-based restorative systems

et al. 2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The authors stated that this might be due its low shrinkage property. [34] evaluated the influence of energy dose on hardness, polymerization depth and internal adaptation of silorane-and methacrylate-based resins in Class II restorations with different bonding procedures. They related that an energy density of 20 J/cm 2 was found to reduce the formation of internal cracks and increased the hardness of silorane-based composite resin.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of different polishing systems on the surface roughness and microhardness of a silorane-based composite

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current study investigated the effects of different polishing systems on the surface roughness and microhardness of a silorane-based resin composite. Forty disks were fabricated (ø = 12 mm, h = 2.5 mm) of Filtek P90 (3 M ESPE, USA). The specimens were divided into four groups (n = 10), according to the polishing system: G1 -Mylar strip (control); G2 -Felt-disc + diamond paste, G3 -Sandpaper discs; G4 -Silicone tips. The specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 h. The external surface roughness was determined through measuring the R a of the specimens. The Vickers microhardness was measured using a microhardness tester. The values of surface roughness and microhardness of each specimen were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA, Games-Howell and Ryan-Einot-Gabriel-Welsch (REGW-Q), and setting the statistical significance at p ≤ 0.05. It was observed that G2 (0.42 μm) and G4 (0.43 μm) showed statistically significant differences when compared to groups G1 (0.25 μm) and G3 (0.19 μm) (p <0.05). There was no statistical difference between groups regarding microhardness (p > 0.05). The polishing systems altered the surface roughness of a silorane-based resin composite, but did not influence the microhardness values.

show abstract

“…P90 primer has a pH of 2.7 that causes mild etching and slight demineralisation of tooth structure [21].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Silorane versus methacrylate composites: A comparative study of the micro-leakage

Fejjeri-Mezghanni

2018

GJPAAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the micro-leakage at the occlusal and cervical margins in class II cavities in permanent molars restored with a low shrink silorane resin composite (Filtek P90) applied with or without etching and two methacrylate-based composite resins (valux plus and Amelogen® plus). Two standardised class II box cavities were prepared in proximal surfaces of 60 sound non-fluorotic permanent molars which were divided into three groups of 20 each according to the type of composite. Group I: silorane-based composite (Filtek P90) in the mesial cavity and methacrylate-based microhybrid composite (Adper single bond 2/valux plus) in the distal cavity, Group II: silorane-based composite in the mesial cavity and silorane-based composite with previous etching in the distal cavity, and Group III: silorane-based composite in the mesial cavity and methacrylate-based micro-hybrid composite (PQ1 /Amelogen plus) in the distal cavity. The samples underwent an artificial aging with thermocycling. Root apices were sealed with transparent orthodontic resin and coated with transparent Fejjeri-Mezghanni, M., Jaafoura, S., Kikly, A. & Sahtout, S. (2017). Silorane versus methacrylate composites: a comparative study of the micro-leakage. New Trends and Issues Proceedings on Advances in Pure and Applied Sciences. 9,[58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65]. Available from: www.propaas.eu 59 varnish except 1 mm around the restoration. The specimens were immersed in 1% methylene blue solution at room temperature for 48 hour. The samples were sectioned longitudinally in the mesiodistal direction and evaluated under a stereomicroscope at 20X. Scoring was done according to the depth of methylene blue penetration into the cavities. Statistical analysis of the data was performed using SPSS 17.0 software. Silorane-based composite resin showed less micro-leakage than the methacrylate-based composites. Etching improved the sealing ability of silorane restorations. Silorane-based composite preceded by etching had less micro-leakage among the other materials used in this in vitro study.

show abstract

Methacrylate- and silorane-based composite restorations: Hardness, depth of cure and interfacial gap formation as a function of the energy dose

Cited by 38 publications

References 33 publications

Fracture resistance of teeth restored with different resin-based restorative systems

Fracture resistance of teeth restored with different resin-based restorative systems

Effects of different polishing systems on the surface roughness and microhardness of a silorane-based composite

Silorane versus methacrylate composites: A comparative study of the micro-leakage

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About