ABSTRACT
The process of ensuring proper retention, marginal seal, and durability of indirect restorations depends heavily on effective cementation. Careful consideration must be made when selecting an adhesive cement for a given application. This article provides information on resin cements that can guide clinicians in determining which type of cement is best suited to their clinical needs regarding cementation of indirect restorations. Emphasis is placed on successful cementation of all-ceramic restorations.
Subject(s)
Cementation/methods , Dental Restoration, Permanent/classification , Resin Cements/chemistry , Acid Etching, Dental/classification , Humans , Light-Curing of Dental Adhesives/methods , Polymerization , Resin Cements/classification , Self-Curing of Dental Resins/methodsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the two-year clinical performance of Class III, IV, and V composite restorations using a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive system (2-ERA) and three one-step self-etching adhesive systems (1-SEAs). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two hundred Class III, IV, and V composite restorations were placed into 50 patients. Each patient received four composite restorations (Amaris, Voco), and these restorations were bonded with one of three 1-SEAs (Futurabond M, Voco; Clearfil S3 Bond, Kuraray; and Optibond All-in-One, Kerr) or one 2-ERA (Adper Single Bond 2/3M ESPE). The four adhesive systems were evaluated at baseline and after 24 months using the following criteria: restoration retention, marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, caries occurrence, postoperative sensitivity and preservation of tooth vitality. After two years, 162 restorations were evaluated in 41 patients. Data were analyzed using the χ(2) test (p<0.05). RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the 2-ERA and the 1-SEAs regarding the evaluated parameters (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: The 1-SEAs showed good clinical performance at the end of 24 months.
Subject(s)
Composite Resins/chemistry , Dental Materials/chemistry , Dental Restoration, Permanent/classification , Acid Etching, Dental/classification , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Color , Dental Bonding , Dental Caries/etiology , Dental Cements/chemistry , Dental Marginal Adaptation , Dental Pulp/physiology , Dentin Sensitivity/etiology , Dentin-Bonding Agents/chemistry , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Methacrylates/chemistry , Middle Aged , Nanocomposites/chemistry , Resin Cements/chemistry , Surface Properties , Young AdultSubject(s)
Resin Cements , Acid Etching, Dental/classification , Crowns , Dental Bonding/classification , Dental Bonding/standards , Dental Porcelain/chemistry , Dental Prosthesis Retention , Dentin Sensitivity/prevention & control , Humans , Materials Testing , Methacrylates/chemistry , Phosphoric Acids/chemistry , Post and Core Technique , Resin Cements/chemistry , Resin Cements/classification , Resin Cements/standards , Self-Curing of Dental Resins/methods , Silanes/chemistry , Stress, Mechanical , Surface PropertiesABSTRACT
This review paper firstly provides an outline of the development of resin-based adhesives. A simple classification method is described based on whether an acid etching agent requiring a washing and drying step is used. These systems are called etch and rinse systems. The other adhesives that do not have the washing and drying steps are referred to as self-etching adhesives. The advantages and disadvantages of these groups of adhesives are discussed. Methods of adhering to the tooth surface are provided, especially where the resin-based adhesive reliability is difficult to control.
Subject(s)
Dental Bonding , Resin Cements/chemistry , Acid Etching, Dental/classification , Acid Etching, Dental/methods , Dental Restoration, Permanent/methods , Dentin/ultrastructure , Dentin-Bonding Agents/chemistry , Glass Ionomer Cements/chemistry , Humans , Resin Cements/classificationABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to investigate the relationship between etch patterns produced on surface enamel by phosphoric acid and the corresponding bond strengths achieved. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight patients had the buccal surface of their teeth etched and replicated for examination under the scanning electron microscope, at the commencement of orthodontic treatment. Histometry was employed to assess the nature and quality of etch patterns using a four-point scale. Twenty of each tooth type (total of 240), were collected and A Company pre-adjusted orthodontic brackets, bonded using Transbond light-cured orthodontic adhesive according to the manufacturer's instructions and 24-hour bond strength testing was undertaken. The Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) was recorded for the tooth and bracket surface for all specimens. RESULTS: The type of etch was not significantly affected by the side (left or right) of the mouth assessed (p = 0.532). Overall, there was no significant difference between etch types for upper and lower teeth (p = 0.218); however, there were significant differences between specific teeth in the upper and lower arch. The greatest amount of Type A etch (well-defined etched enamel prisms) was found on the lower incisors, yet in all cases this 'ideal' etch was found to occupy less than 5% of the etched buccal surface enamel. The greatest area of etched enamel surface was occupied by Type C (etched but enamel prisms not evident). The mean bond strength values varied significantly between different tooth types, with the lowest bond strength found on the upper first molar(6.5MPa) and the highest on the lower first molar (13.1 MPa). CONCLUSIONS: An ideal etch pattern is not essential in order to produce a strong bond.
