Dergiler / International Dental Research / 2021 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 2

The evaluation of effectiveness of adhesive systems on dental amalgam restorations

Sayfa
83–92
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)

Results: In terms of microleakage among groups, the differences that were determined were significant (p

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of different adhesive systems in amalgam restorations and their effects on microleakage.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Methodology: In this study, 105 caries-free extracted human permanent molar teeth were used.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Results: In terms of microleakage among groups, the differences that were determined were significant (p
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of different adhesive systems in amalgam restorations and their effects on microleakage. Methodology: In this study, 105 caries-free extracted human permanent molar teeth were used. Teeth were randomly assigned to five groups (n=21), and class I cavities were created on the surface of each tooth. The first was a control group to which no adhesive system was applied. Amalgam Liner (VOCO GmbH, Cuxhaven Germany) was applied to Group II, Clearfil SE-Bond (Kuraray Europe GmbH, Frankfurt Germany) was applied to Group III, Panavia F 2.0 (Kuraray Europe GmbH, Frankfurt Germany) was applied to Group IV, Amalgambond Plus (Parkell Inc.Edgewood, NY USA) was applied to Group V, and then amalgam (Tytin, Kerr, California USA) restorations were placed. After the polishing process, samples were subjected to thermocycling 1,000 times. Teeth were sectioned buccopalatinally/lingually, and microleakage scores of the occlusal walls were evaluated under a stereomicroscope at 15X magnification by a standardized scale ranging from 0 to 4. One tooth was selected randomly from each group for SEM (Scanning Electron Microscope), and SEM LEO EVO 40 (LEO Ltd., Cambridge UK) photographs of amalgam-tooth hard tissue interfaces were also taken at different magnifications. The results of the microleakage tests were statistically analyzed by both the Kruskal-Wallis Test and the Mann Whitney U Test. Results: In terms of microleakage among groups, the differences that were determined were significant (p

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Atakul, F., Ünal, M. (2022). The evaluation of effectiveness of adhesive systems on dental amalgam restorations. International Dental Research, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 2, 83–92. https://ajindex.com/articles/539459

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (14)

  1. Heymann H, Swift, Jr. E, Ritter A. Sturdevant's art and science of operative dentistry. 6th ed. Mosby; 2013
  2. Lombard R, Du Preez IC, Oberholzer TG. Microleakage of different amalgams bonded with dual cure resin cements. SADJ 2007;62(2):056, 058-61
  3. Saba K, Maxood A, Abdullah S, Riaz A, Din SU. Comparison of frequency of post-operative sensitivity in amalgam restorations using copal varnish and dentin adhesive liner. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2018;30(2):163-6
  4. Özok AR, de Gee AJ, Wu MK, Wesselink PR. The influence of resin composite and bonded amalgam restorations on dentine permeability in Class II cavities in vitro. Dent Mater 2001;17(6):477-84. (Crossref
  5. Moazzami SM, Moosavi H, Moddaber M, et al. Effect of self-etch adhesives on self-sealing ability of high-copper amalgams. J Dent (Shiraz) 2016;17(4):326-33
  6. Harris NO, Garcia-Godoy F, Nielsen Nathe C. The developing carious lesion. In: Primary preventive dentistry. 6th ed. Pearson; 2004
  7. Pinkham J R, Casamassimo PS, Tulunoğlu Ö, Tortop T. Pediatric dentistry: infancy through adolescence 4th ed. Atlas Kitapçılık. ANKARA 2009 8. Brian HC, Lam OL, Jagannathan N, Botelho MG. A systematic review of amalgam bonded restorations: in vitro and clinical findings. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018;19(8):1013-24. (Crossref
  8. Bashar AK, Alam MS, Hussain MA, Islam MM, Hossain MM. An in vitro microleakage study of different filling materials using dye penetration method. Bangladesh Med Res Counc Bull 2006 Apr;32(1):1-9
  9. Kemaloglu H, Pamir T, Tezel H. A 3-year randomized clinical trial evaluating two different bonded posterior restorations: amalgam versus resin composite. Eur J Dent 2016;10(1):16–22. (Crossref
  10. Cianconi L, Conte G, Mancini M. Shear bond strength, failure modes, and confocal microscopy of bonded amalgam restorations. Dent Mater J 2011;30(2):216-21. (Crossref
  11. Şengün A, Karakaya Ş, Özer F, Kuşdemir M. The investigation of bond strength of amalgam to dentin by using different resin meterials. Journal of Hacettepe University Faculty of Dentistry 2002;26(2):26
  12. Pop M, Sitaru A, Monea A. In vitro evaluation of microleakage in bonded amalgam restorations using different adhesive materials. Acta Medica Marisiensis 2010;56(6):584-6
  13. Moosavi H, Sadeghi S. Short-term evaluation of resin sealing and rebonding on amalgam microleakage: an SEM observation. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008 Mar 1;9(3):32-9. (Crossref
  14. Altun C. Microleakage in Restorative Dentistry. Gülhane Med J. 2004