ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT The objective of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) to dentin of two universal adhesive systems: Single Bond Universal (SBU) and Ambar Universal , used in different adhesion strategies. Materials and Method: Thirty-six human teeth were prepared (n=6) and treated following different adhesive strategies: G1: SBU-etch-and-rinse, applied on dry dentin; G2: SBUetch- and-rinse, applied on moist dentin; G3: SBU-self-etching; G4: AU-etch-and-rinse, applied on dry dentin; G5: AU-etch-and-rinse, applied on moist dentin; G6: AU-self-etching. The specimens were submitted to μTBS test, failure analysis, and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Data were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey's tests (p<0.05). Results: Microtensile bond strength was significantly lower in G1 than G2 and G3. AU adhesive performed worse than the SBU system, except in G5. Cohesive and mixed failures predominated in G1 and G2, while adhesive failures predominated in G3 and G5. Conclusions: Universal adhesives are an interesting innovation, but there are still doubts about their performance, mainly regarding the different protocols provided by the manufacturers. The conventional adhesive strategy on moist dentin demonstrated higher μTBS for both adhesives. The use of the selfetching strategy with the SBU showed promising results.
RESUMO O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar a resistência de união à microtração (μTBS) de dois sistemas adesivos universais: Single Bond Universal (SBU) e Ambar Universal , utilizados em diferentes estratégias de adesão. Materiais e método: 36 dentes humanos foram preparados (n=6) e tratados seguindo diferentes estratégias adesivas: G1: SBU-condicionamento e enxágue, aplicado sobre dentina seca; G2: SBU-condicionamento e enxágue, aplicado sobre dentina úmida; G3: SBU-autocondicionante; G4: AU-condicionamento e enxágue, aplicado em dentina seca; G5: AU-condicionamento e enxágue, aplicado sobre dentina úmida; G6: AU-autocondicionante. Os espécimes foram submetidos ao teste de μTBS, análise de falhas e microscopia eletrônica de varredura (SEM). Os dados foram analisados com os testes ANOVA e Tukey (p<0,05). Resultados: A resistência de união à microtração de G1 foi significativamente menor que G2 e G3. O adesivo AU teve um desempenho pior que o sistema SBU, com exceção do G5. Falhas coesivas e mistas predominaram em G1 e G2 enquanto G3 e G5 apresentaram predominância de falhas adesivas. Conclusões: Os adesivos universais representam uma inovação interessante, mas ainda há dúvidas sobre seu desempenho, principalmente em relação aos diferentes protocolos fornecidos pelos fabricantes. A estratégia adesiva convencional em dentina úmida demonstrou maior μTBS para ambos os adesivos. O uso da estratégia autocondicionante com a SBU apresentou resultados promissores.
ABSTRACT
Aims: The purpose of this paper was to evaluate the influence of different light curing units on the conversion of four composite resins with different compositions (Durafill VS® - Heraeus-Kulzer, Tetric Ceram® - Ivoclar/Vivadent, Filtek™ Supreme XT - 3M ESPE™ e Aelite™ LS Packable - Bisco), using differential scanning calorimetry. Materials and Methods: A stainless steel matrix was used to prepare 48 cylindrical composite test samples (n=6), measuring 3 mm in diameter and 1 mm in thickness. The samples were photoactivated using a halogen lamp (Optilux™ 500 - Demetron/Kerr) and three different generations of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) (LEC-470 I - MMOptics, Radii Plus - SDI and Ultra-Lume™ LED 5 - Ultradent). After removal of the matrix, each sample was weighed and hermetically sealed in an aluminum pan and analyzed. The amount of heat liberated by thermopolymerisation of residual monomers after photoactivation was measured in Joules/gram (J/g). The data were submitted to Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test (P ≤ 0.002) and the Tukey test (P < 0.05). Results: The Ultra-Lume™ LED 5 was superior on degree of conversion for all resins. The Radii Plus was equal to the Ultra-Lume™ LED 5, except for the resin Tetric Ceram® , were the Optilux™ 500 was superior. The LEC-470 I was inferior for the conversion of all resins. Conclusion: The study proves the importance of the compatibility of the different photoinitiators in resin composites with the different light sources.
Subject(s)
Calorimetry, Differential Scanning , Camphor/analogs & derivatives , Camphor/chemistry , Camphor/radiation effects , Composite Resins/chemistry , Composite Resins/radiation effects , Curing Lights, Dental/classification , Dental Materials/chemistry , Hot Temperature , Humans , Light-Curing of Dental Adhesives , Materials Testing , Phosphines/chemistry , Phosphines/radiation effects , Photoinitiators, Dental/chemistry , Photoinitiators, Dental/radiation effects , Polymerization , Spectrophotometry , ThermogravimetryABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The objective of the present study was to analyze the superficial roughness and the interface between enamel and composite resin restorations after dental bleaching procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Black's class V cavities were made and restored with composite resin, and the whole set, enamel-restorative material, was treated with 35% hydrogen peroxide. Seven procedures of 30 min each were performed. A profilometric assessment was carried out before and after the treatment of each sample, and roughness scores were obtained. Treated and untreated samples were analyzed under scanning electronic microscope and images of their surface were obtained. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The treatment with 35% hydrogen peroxide caused no alteration in the interface between enamel and composite resin, Tetric Ceram, fillings and the topical application of 35% hydrogen peroxide on enamel and composite resin, Tetric Ceram, caused an alteration of their surface topography, featuring a predominance of depressions after the bleaching treatment.