ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of surface treatment and repair material on the repair shear bond strength (SBS) of the bioactive restorative material. METHODS: A total of 240 Activa BioActive Restorative (Activa) discs were prepared, aged, and polished, and divided randomly into eight groups (n = 30). Groups 1-4 discs were repaired with bulk-fill flowable resin-based composite (Bulk-RBC), and Groups 5-8 discs with Activa. Surface treatment used for each repair material type were air abrasion with silica-coated 30-m Al2O3 particles (air abrasion) (Groups 2 & 6), Air abrasion with universal primer (Groups 3 & 7), and Air abrasion with universal adhesive (Groups 4 & 8). Groups 1 and 5 were controls without surface treatment. SBS test was performed, and the failure mode and surface topography were assessed. RESULTS: Surface treatment with air abrasion significantly improved the SBS for repair using both Activa and Bulk-RBC. Repair SBS using Activa was significantly higher compared with Bulk-RBC. Cohesive failure in substrate and mixed failures were most common in the surface-treated groups (2-4, 6-8). Air abrasion produced prominent surface topography changes compared with polishing. CONCLUSION: Air abrasion enhances the repair SBS of aged bioactive restorative material. The use of the same material (Activa) for repair affords a higher bond strength compared with the use bulk-RBC.
Subject(s)
Biocompatible Materials/chemistry , Regeneration , Shear Strength , Adolescent , Air , Aluminum Oxide/chemistry , Animals , Bicuspid/physiology , Cattle , Cell Differentiation , Cell Survival , Ceramics , Child , Dental Materials , Dentin/metabolism , Equipment Design , Humans , Materials Testing , Mice , Mice, Nude , Microscopy, Electron, Scanning , Osteogenesis , Resin Cements/chemistry , Stress, Mechanical , Surface Properties , Tissue ScaffoldsABSTRACT
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM: Resin bonded bridges (RBBs) offer a conservative approach to tooth replacement. However, the use of this treatment option has been limited. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the knowledge and attitude of dentists in Saudi Arabia, including general dental practitioners (GDPs) and prosthodontic and restorative specialists (SPs), toward RBBs. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, questionnaires designed to survey knowledge of RBB performance factors were distributed to GDPs and SPs (n = 400). Specifically, opinions of GDPs and SPs regarding clinical, mechanical, technique- and patient-dependent performance factors of RBBs were obtained. Average significance and Chi-square tests were used to identify the frequency, pattern, and significance of the response variables identified. RESULTS: A majority (65.3%) of the subjects reported using RBBs in less than 10% of their prosthodontic cases. The most common reason for the limited clinical application of RBBs was perceived poor retention (23.45%). In addition, SPs regarded the influence of enamel structure, number of pontics, cement type, RBB design, and surface treatment as "very significant" factors with respect to RBB survival. Overall, a statistically significant difference was observed between the responses of GDPs and SPs regarding their knowledge of performance factors for RBBs. CONCLUSION: In comparison to SPs, GDPs reported greater disagreement with current standards for RBB success factors. Moreover, 60% of SPs and 71% of GDPs used RBBs for less than 10% of their prosthodontic cases. Therefore, continuing education opportunities are needed for practicing dentists, and undergraduate students need to receive greater exposure to the clinical application of RBBs.
