Dergiler / International Dental Research / 2020 / Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 2

Comparison of different standardized bond strength tests and the influence of glycine powder treatment in composite resin repairs

Sayfa
36–43
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Nano-hybrid-composites are robust to different repair protocols.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Aim: The repair of restorations is an eligible method to extend the survival rates of intraoral restorations.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Methodology: The influence of mechanical preparation by no powder, 25 µm glycine powder or 50 µm aluminium-oxide powder and chemical conditioning by the use of bonding, phosphoric acid and bonding or bonding, phosphoric acid and a silane on the repair bond strength of an artificially aged nano-hybrid composite was tested according to the guidelines of DIN 13990 (2017), ISO 29022 (2013) and ISO/TS 11405 (2015).
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Nano-hybrid-composites are robust to different repair protocols.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2017 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Aim: The repair of restorations is an eligible method to extend the survival rates of intraoral restorations. There is a consensus that the old surface has to be removed before repair by the use of a sandblaster or rotating instruments. This study aimed to investigate whether a glycine powder can be used successfully in composite repair by measurement of shear and tensile bond strength according to dental standards. Methodology: The influence of mechanical preparation by no powder, 25 µm glycine powder or 50 µm aluminium-oxide powder and chemical conditioning by the use of bonding, phosphoric acid and bonding or bonding, phosphoric acid and a silane on the repair bond strength of an artificially aged nano-hybrid composite was tested according to the guidelines of DIN 13990 (2017), ISO 29022 (2013) and ISO/TS 11405 (2015). The fracture modes were evaluated by adhesive, cohesive or mixed failures. Results: There was no significant difference in the performance of the different mechanical and chemical treatments. The shear bond test according to DIN 13990 (2017) produces higher repair bond strengths (26.0±8.9 MPa) than the test described in ISO 29022 (17.9±6.3 MPa). The tensile bond strength according to ISO/TS 11405 (6.9±1.8 MPa) was the lowest. Most adhesive failures occurred with the shear test according to ISO 29022 (41%), followed by DIN 13990 (18%) and the tensile test (4%). Conclusion: For evaluating the bond strength of composites the test described in ISO 29022 is recommended, because it produces the highest percentage of adhesive failures. Nano-hybrid-composites are robust to different repair protocols.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

HERRMANN, G. P., REİMANN, S., DARATSİANOS, N., WEBER, A., KEİLİG, L., NADAL, J., BOURAUEL, C. (2022). Comparison of different standardized bond strength tests and the influence of glycine powder treatment in composite resin repairs. International Dental Research, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 2, 36–43. https://ajindex.com/articles/539173

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (6)

  1. Anderson MH. Current concepts of dental caries and its prevention. Oper Dent Supp 2001;6:11-18.
  2. Bogacki RE, Hunt RJ, del Aguila M, Smith WR. Survival analysis of posterior restorations using an insurance claims database. Oper Dent 2002;27:488-492.
  3. Lynch CD, Opdam NJ, Hickel R, Brunton PA, Gurgan S, Kakaboura A, Shearer AC, Vanherle G, Wilson NH. Guidance on posterior resin composites: Academy of Opera-tive Dentistry - European Section. J Dent 2014;42:377-383. (Crossref) Staehle HJ, Wolff D, Frese C. Mehr Zahnerhaltung wagen –Langzeitbeobachtungen von direkten Kompositrestaurationen. Quintessenz 2014; 65: 547-555.
  4. Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Loomans BA, Huysmans MC. 12-year survival of composite vs. amalgam restorations. J Dent Res 2010;89:1063-1067. (Crossref) Blum IR, Jagger DC, Wilson HH. Defective dental restorations: to repair or not to repair? Part 1: direct composite restorations. SADJ 2011;66:114-118. (Crossref) Blum IR, Lynch CD, Wilson NH. Factors influencing repair of dental restorations with resin composite. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 2014;6:81-87. (Crossref) Hickel R, Brüshaver K, Ilie N. Repair of restorations – Criteria for decision making and clinical recommendations. Dent Mater 2013;29:28-50. (Crossref) Krejci I, Lieber CM, Lutz F. Time required to remove totally bonded tooth-colored posterior restorations and related tooth substance loss. Dent Mater 1995;11:34-40. (Crossref) Martin J, Fernandez E, Estay J, Gordan VV, Mjor IA, Moncada G. Minimal invasive treatment for defective restorations: five-year results using sealants. Oper Dent 2013;38:125-33. (Crossref) Simonsen RJ. Conservation of tooth structure in restorative dentistry. Quintessence Int 1985;16:15-24.
  5. Fernandez E, Martin J, Vildosola P, Oliveira Junior OB, Gordan V, Mjor I, Bersezio C, Estay J, de Andrade MF, Moncada G. Can repair increase the longevity of composite resins? Results of a 10-year clinical trial. J Dent 2015;43:279-286. (Crossref) Foitzik M, Attin T. Korrekturfüllung – Möglichkeiten und Durchführung. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 2004;114:1003-1011. Staehle HJ. Reparatur zahnärztlicher Restaurationen. Zahnärzteblatt Baden-Württemberg 2011;12:30-32. Winen RG. Kofferdam – Stand des Wissens. Quintessenz 2017; 68: 745-755.
  6. Loomans BA, Cardoso MV, Roeters FJ, Opdam NJ, De Munck J, Huysmans MC, van Meerbeek B. Is there one optimal repair technique for all composites? Dent Mater 2011b;27:701-709. (Crossref) Frankenberger R, Krämer N, Ebert J, Lohbauer U, Käppel S, ten Weges S, Pe