Journals / Fırat Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Tıp Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 2

Determination of Bonding Strengths of Different Bonding Agents Frequently used in Dental Restorative Treatments

Diş Hekimliğinde Restoratif Tedavilerde Sıklıkla Kullanılan Farklı Bonding Ajanların Bağlanma Dayanımlarının Tespit Edilmesi

Pages
71–78
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

When looking at the fracture types, cohesive breaks were seen in all groups.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: New dentin bonding agents have been developed to increase the bonding strength of restorative materials to dental tissues.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Restorations were made in teflon molds and samples were kept in distilled water at 37°C/24 hours.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:When looking at the fracture types, cohesive breaks were seen in all groups.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: New dentin bonding agents have been developed to increase the bonding strength of restorative materials to dental tissues. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the shear bond strengths of different dental binding agents frequently used in dentistry. Materials and Methods: Four different adhesive bonding agents; Futurabond (FB) (Japan), Tokuyama Bond Force (TB) (Tokuyama Dental, Japan), One-Up Bond (OUB) (Tokuyama Corp., Tokyo, Japan) Voco-NR Cuxhaven-Germany) were used. Restorations were made in teflon molds and samples were kept in distilled water at 37°C/24 hours. Shear bond strength tests were carried out with a universal tester at 0.5 mm/min speed. Analysis of the obtained data was done by one way variance analysis and Tukey test. Results: According to the Shapiro-Wilk test results, our data were observed to be normal distribution (P>0.05). When we look at the results of microtensile bonding, The tensile result was found to be 96 Newton (MPa) in TB, 84 Newton (MPa) in OUB, 74 Newton (MPa) in FB and 63 Newton (MPa) in GB, respectively. Conclusion: As a result of this work, TB has the highest bonding strength and GB has the lowest bonding strength. When looking at the fracture types, cohesive breaks were seen in all groups.

Özet

Amaç: Restoratif materyallerin diş dokularına bağlanma kuvvetlerinin arttırılması amacıyla günümüzde yeni dentin bonding ajanlar geliştirildi. Bu çalışmanın amacı diş hekimliğinde sıklıkla kullanılan değerlendirilmesidir. farklı dental bağlayıcı ajanların makaslama bağlanma dayanımlarının Gereç ve Yöntem: Dört farklı adeziv bonding ajanın; G-Premio Bond (GB) (GC, Tokyo, Japan), Tokuyama Bond Force (TB) (Tokuyama Dental, Japan), One-Up Bond (OUB) (Tokuyama Corp., Tokyo, Japan), Futurabond (FB) (Voco-NR Cuxhaven, Germany) kullanıldı. Teflon kalıplar içerisinde restorasyonlar hazırlandı ve 37°C/24 saat distile su içerisinde bekletildi. Makaslama bağlanma dayanımı testleri bir üniversal test cihazı yardımıyla 0.5 mm/dk hızında gerçekleştirildi. Elde edilen verilerin analizleri tek yönlü varyans analizi ve Tukey testi ile yapıldı. Bulgular: Shapiro-Wilk testine sonuçlarına göre verilerimizin normal dağılıma uygun olduğu gözlemlendi (P>0.05). Microtensile bağlanma sonuçlarına baktığımız zaman sırasıyla TB de 96 Newton (MPa), OUB' da 84 Newton (MPa), FB'de 74 Newton (MPa) ve GB'de 63 Newton (MPa) olarak tespit edildi. Böylece TB de en yüksek bağlanma dayanımı, GB de en düşük bağlanma dayanımı tespit edildi. Sonuç: TB de en yüksek bağlanma dayanımı, GB de en düşük bağlanma dayanımı olduğu tespit edildi. Kırılma tiplerine bakıldığı zaman tüm gruplarda koheziv kopmalar görüldü.

🔖

Cite This Article

DAYI, B., KAMALAK, A., KAMALAK, H. (2022). Determination of Bonding Strengths of Different Bonding Agents Frequently used in Dental Restorative Treatments. Fırat Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 2, 71–78. https://ajindex.com/articles/514554

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, et al. Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: Current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 2003; 28: 215-235
  2. Stebner CM. Economy of sound fundamentals in operative dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc 1954; 49: 294-300
  3. Gregoire G, Joniot S, Guignes P, Millas A. Dentin permeability: Self-etching and one-bottle dentin bonding systems. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 90: 42-49
  4. Nakabayashi N. Interpenetration of monomers into dentin and their adhesion. Kokubyo Gakkai Zasshi 1984; 51: 447-454
  5. Kwong SM, Cheung GSP, Kei LH, et al. Micro-tensile bond strengths to sclerotic dentin using a self-etching and a total-etching technique. Dental Materials 2002; 18: 359- 369
  6. Tay FR, Pashley DH. Have dentin adhesives become too hydrophilic? J Can Dent Assoc 2003; 69: 726-731
  7. Proenca JP, Polido M, Osorio E, et al. Dentin regional bond strength of self-etch and total-etch adhesive systems. Dent Mater 2007; 23: 1542-1548
  8. Sauro S, Pashley DH, Mannocci F, et al. Micropermeability of current self-etching and etch-andrinse adhesives bonded to deep dentine: A comparison study using a double-staining/confocal microscopy technique. Eur J Oral Sci 2008; 116: 184-193
  9. Yuan Y, Shimada Y, Ichinose S, Sadr A, Tagami J. Effects of dentin characteristics on interfacial nanoleakage. J Dent Res 2007; 86: 1001-1006
  10. Perdigao J, Dutra-Correa M, Castilhos N, et al. One-year clinical performance of self-etch adhesives in posterior restorations. Am J Dent 2007; 20: 125-133
  11. Tyas MJ. Clinical performance of two dentine adhesives: 2-year results. Aust Dent J 1996; 41: 324-327
  12. Van Meerbeek B, Perdigao J, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. The clinical performance of adhesives. J Dent 1998; 26: 1-20
  13. Zander-Grande C, Amaral RC, Loguercio AD, Barroso LP, Reis A. Clinical performance of one-step self-etch adhesives applied actively in cervical lesions: 24-month clinical trial. Oper Dent 2014; 39: 228-238
  14. Swift EJ. Dentin/enamel adhesives: review of the literature. Pediatr Dent 2002; 24: 456-461
  15. Anchieta RB, Machado LS, Martini AP, et al. Effect of long-term storage on nanomechanical and morphological properties of dentin-adhesive interfaces. Dent Mater 2015; 31: 141-153
  16. Gupta N, Tripathi AM, Saha S, Dhinsa K, Garg A. Effect of saliva on the tensile bond strength of different generation adhesive systems: An In-Vitro Study. J Clin Diagn Res 2015; 9: ZC91-94
  17. Kugel G. Direct and indirect adhesive restorat