ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of resin-coating using one-bottle adhesives on the bond strength of resin cements in single-visit and multiple-visit treatments. Three one-bottle adhesives were used for resin-coating and/or pre-treatment adhesives prior to cementation, in conjunction with resin cements from the same manufacturers: Clearfil Universal Bond Quick with Panavia V5 (UBQ/Pv5), Scotchbond Universal Adhesive with RelyX Ultimate (SBU/RxU), and Optibond All-in-one with NX3 Nexus (OP/NX3). Bovine dentin surfaces were left uncoated or resin-coated. After 1-h water storage (single-visit) or 1-week water storage with a non-eugenol temporary cement (multiple-visit), a CAD/CAM resin block was cemented to uncoated or resin-coated dentin surfaces. Microtensile bond strengths (µTBSs) were measured and statistically analyzed (α=0.05). Application of resin-coating improved µTBSs. The multiple-visit group exhibited lower values of µTBS than the single-visit group. Selection of the materials affected µTBSs. Resin-coating and single-visit treatment are desirable for CAD/CAM resin composite restorations.
Subject(s)
Dental Bonding , Resin Cements , Animals , Cattle , Dental Cements , Dentin , Dentin-Bonding Agents , Materials Testing , Tensile StrengthABSTRACT
This study investigated that the effect of rewetting agent on dentinal microtensile bond strength (microTBS). Human molars were sectioned to expose the superficial dentin surfaces. Samples were divided into two groups according to type of adhesives-Single Bond (S) and One-Step (O)], and again subdivided into five groups by different dentin surface treatment-dry for 15s (D), blot dry (BD) or dry for 15s, and rewet with different rewetting agents [distilled water (DW), Gluma Desensitizer (GD) and Aqua-Prep (AP)] for 30s. After application of adhesive, composite resin was built up on the bonding surface. Each tooth was sectioned to obtain stick with 1 mm2 cross sectional area and the microTBS was determined by EZ test. In the S group, the mean microTBS of GD, AP and BD group was significantly higher than that of DW and D group (p < 0.05). In the O group, the mean microTBS of AP, GD, BD and DW group was significantly higher than that of D group (p < 0.05). The data suggested that Gluma Desensitizer and Aqua-Prep could be successfully used as rewetting agents, and Distilled water could be acceptable in aceton based adhesive system only.
Subject(s)
Humans , Adhesives , Dentin , Molar , Tooth , WaterABSTRACT
This study investigated the influence of IRM on marginal microleakage of 5th generation adhesives. Class V cavities with gingival margins in dentin were prepared on both buccal and lingual surfaces of 60 extracted human molar teeth. Prepared teeth were randomly divided into six groups. Group 1 and 4 received no temporary restoration with IRM. Group 2 and 5 were covered with IRM mixed at P/L ratio(10g/1g). Group 3 and 6 were covered with IRM mixed at P/L ratio(10g/2g). The temporary restorations were removed mechanically with an ultrasonic scaler after one-week storage in distilled water. The cavities were restored using one of two adhesives and composites; Single Bond/Filtek Z 250(Group 1, 2 and 3), UniFil Bond/UniFil F(Group 4, 5 and 6). Following one day storage in distilled water, the restored teeth were thermocycled for 500 cycles(between 5degrees C and 55degrees C) and immersed in 2% methylene blue for dye penetration testing. The results were analysed using Kruskal-Wallis Test, Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon signed ranked test at a significance level of 0.05. The results of this study were as follows: 1. Ranking of mean microleakage scores at the enamel margins was Group 10.05). 4. At the dentin margins, the microleakage of the group not pretreated with IRM was lower than that of the group pretreated with IRM. And the microleakage of UniFil Bond was lower than that of Single Bond. 5. Compared with microleakages between the enamel and dentin margins of each groups, Group 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 at dentin margin were higher microleakage than those at enamel margin. There were significant difference between enamel and dentin microleakage of Group 2 and 3(p<0.05).