Microtensile bond strength of repaired indirect resin composite

Visuttiwattanakorn, Porntida; Suputtamongkol, Kallaya; Angkoonsit, Duangjai; Kaewthong, Sunattha; Charoonanan, Piyanan

doi:10.4047/jap.2017.9.1.38

Cited by 14 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 17 publications

(29 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There were no significant differences for DTS in the four composite categories. [28]. Their research showed higher DTS values compared to our study, due to the fact that composite metallic coating leads to increased material properties.…”

Section: Dts Evaluationcontrasting

confidence: 56%

Hybrid Dental Composites Biomechanical Properties

Feurdean¹,

Babtan²,

Ionel³

et al. 2020

Mater. Plast.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the last two decades, both general and oral health status became more important for individuals, being associated to their quality of life, social provenance and income. Society�s evolution is associated to high expectations regarding edentulous and decays treatment. Metal filling such as gaudent or amalgam have been replaced by aesthetic materials, to achieve similarity to the patient�s genuine biological tissue. Along with the aesthetic demand, dental materials have to fulfill biocompatibility and mechanical properties proximate to healthy soft either hard tissues. Composite materials have the advantages of accomplishing biological and mechanical demands and to be accessible financially, compared to ceramics. Composites are classified according to the main monomer, filling, particles� dimension, addition of external molecules, this entirety having a direct influence on materials� properties. The objective of this prospective interventional in vitro study was to evaluate biomechanical properties of four different hybrid composites: Premise direct - Premise indirect (Kerr, Orange, California, USA), Gradia� Direct (GC, Alsip, Illinois, USA) and Ceramage� (SHOFU Dental, Ratinger, Germany). Vickers microhardness, compressive strenght, direct tensile strenght, water absorption and solubility were assessed. The results showed that microfilled hybrid composites UDMA (urethane dimethacrylate)-based monomer had the highest evaluations regarding Vickers microhardness, compressive strenght and tensile strenght, whereas water absorption was the highest for nanofilled hybrid Bis-GMA (bisphenol A-glycidyl methacrylate)/TEGDMA (triethylene glycol dimethacrylate), and solubility for microfilled hybrid UDMA based monomer.

show abstract

Section: Dts Evaluationcontrasting

confidence: 56%

Hybrid Dental Composites Biomechanical Properties

Feurdean¹,

Babtan²,

Ionel³

et al. 2020

Mater. Plast.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this study, 99% ethanol ultrasonication cleaning for 3 min was used to remove the residual alumina particles attached to the blasted surfaces of CRB and to expose fillers by partially dissolving the organic matrix, so the silanization could reach more fillers effectively. In fact, subsequent to sandblasting and ultrasonication, the nano-filler particles were exposed, which is an ideal condition to achieve silanization process effortlessly 22) .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of elapsed time following alumina blasting on adhesion of CAD/CAM resin block to dentin

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate the time elapsed bond strength of the CAD/CAM resin block (CRB) to bovine dentin after alumina blasting. CRB (KATANA AVENCIA BLOCK) slices were ground with #600-SiC paper and divided into three groups according to alumina blasting pressure-0.1 MPa, 0.2 MPa or untreated-and then divided into two subgroups according to the time elapsed after alumina blasting-same-day or one-week "dry-storage" at controlled laboratory conditions before cementation. The CRB slices were then cemented to bovine dentin with Panavia V5 (Kuraray Noritake Dental), and divided into two subgroups-light curing or chemical curing. After 24 h storage in distilled water at 37°C, the specimens were then subjected to micro-tensile bond strength (µTBS) testing. One-week group showed a significant decrease in µTBS. The µTBS values showed that CRBs must be cemented with light curing immediately after alumina blasting at 0.1 or 0.2 MPa to obtain a stable adhesion.

show abstract

“…Dental composites are a mixture of polymers and glass particles used in dental restorations to mimic the appearance and performance of teeth and are often used to repair damaged teeth [1]. Their mechanical properties have improved over the last years and consequently a lot of research has been performed to assess these properties and how they are affected by variations in particle size, polymerization depth, and viscosity [2][3][4]. In one longitudinal study it was found that out of 926 restorations investigated, 8% failed by fracture.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toughness Measurement in Direct Resin Composites Using Quantitative Fractographic Analysis

Angus¹,

Mecholsky²,

Abdulhameed³

2018

EDUJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To outline a procedure to determine the fracture toughness of direct resin composites failing from "natural" flaws. Methodology: Tensile (hour glass) tests (n = 30) of a conventional hybrid dental composite (Tetric EvoCeram, Ivoclar Vivadent) were fabricated and fractured in uniaxial tension loaded at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min (≥ 10 MPa/s). The fracture toughness of the material was then calculated using the stress at failure and measurement of the crack size from fractographic analysis using SEM. Hardness (H) measurements were taken using a Vickers pyramidal diamond indenter. Elastic modulus (E) was calculated from the E/H ratio using a Knoop indenter. Results: The values for fracture toughness found were similar to other Bis-GMA based dental composites 0.5 ±0.2 MPa . The Vickers Hardness was 509 ± 27 MPa and the Knoop Hardness was 495 ± 14 MPa using 0.5 kg/30 s, while the elastic modulus was 9.5 ±1.4 GPa. Conclusion: The differences found in fracture toughness between this study and previous published studies are most likely due to variation in technique and material. Quantitative fractographic analysis offers a different method to evaluate the toughness of direct resin composites.

show abstract

Microtensile bond strength of repaired indirect resin composite

Cited by 14 publications

References 17 publications

Hybrid Dental Composites Biomechanical Properties

Hybrid Dental Composites Biomechanical Properties

The effect of elapsed time following alumina blasting on adhesion of CAD/CAM resin block to dentin

Toughness Measurement in Direct Resin Composites Using Quantitative Fractographic Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About