Two Class II boxes of standardized dimensions were prepared in each of 10 extracted third molar teeth. The dentinal adhesives Syntac, Gluma 2000, Scotchbond MP, and All-bond 2 were applied to five boxes each. All the boxes were restored with the same photopolymerizing resin composite. The microleakage of each restoration was measured in the permeability cell. The physiologic solution able to seep between the walls of the cavity and resin composite was measured and the flux of the liquid over time was calculated. All-Bond 2 was the only adhesive found, in some specimens, to make the dentin completely impermeable and to form an extremely precise seal between the resin complete material and the underlying dentinal surface. The flux values for all four adhesives were significantly different; Syntac allowed the greatest amount of microleakage. However, these in vitro results should not be considered absolute values.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|
Materials (Basel)
July 2024
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, Center of Dental Medicine, Jena University Hospitals, 07743 Jena, Germany.
(1) Background: The in vitro study aimed to investigate mechanical characteristics of resin composites and their suitability in direct restauration of endodontically treated teeth (ETT). (2) Methods: 38 endodontically treated premolars with occlusal access cavities were directly restored using the following resin composites and adhesives: Tetric Evo Ceram + Syntac classic ( = 10), Venus Diamond + iBond Total-Etch ( = 10), Grandio + Solobond M ( = 9), Estelite Sigma Quick + Bond Force ( = 9). After thermocycling, the elastic modulus, shear-bond-strength, fracture load (Fmax) and fracture mode distribution were evaluated.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJ Prosthet Dent
September 2024
Assistant Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilian-University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Statement Of Problem: Although bonding is important for long-term clinical success, studies on the bonding of additively manufactured ceramics are sparse.
Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine the influence of manufacturing methods, additive (LCM) versus subtractive (CAM). and ceramic materials, zirconia (ZrO) and lithium disilicate (LiSi), on the tensile bond strength (TBS), failure mode, and surface roughness of ceramics.
Sci Rep
May 2024
Centre for Operative Dentistry, Periodontology, and Endodontology, Department of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Danube Private University (DPU), Steiner Landstraße 124, 3500, Krems an der Donau, Austria.
This preregistered ex vivo investigation examined the dentinal hybrid layer formation of a resinous infiltrant (Icon), with reference to both thickness (HLT) and homogeneity when combined with modified tunnel preparation (occlusal cavity only) and internal/external caries infiltration. The adhesives Syntac and Scotchbond MP were used as controls (Groups 1 and 3) or in combination with Icon (Groups 2 and 4). A split-tooth design using healthy third molars from 20 donors resulted in 20 prepared dentine cavities per experimental group.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJ Esthet Restor Dent
February 2024
Department of Prosthodontics, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich-Heine-University, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Objective: To investigate the effect of ceramic thickness and dental substrate (enamel vs. dentin/enamel) on the survival rate and failure load of non-retentive occlusal veneers.
Materials And Methods: Human maxillary molars (n = 60) were divided into five test-groups (n = 12).
Purpose: To compare a self-etch and a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive in terms of internal and marginal composite-tooth bond failure separately on enamel and dentin/cement at 36-48 months after restoration placement using optical coherence tomography (OCT).
Materials And Methods: Twenty-seven patients with two or three class V composite restorations of noncarious cervical lesions 36-48 months after placement were included. The one-step self-etch adhesive Futurabond M ([Voco] group SE, n = 25) and the two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive Solobond M ([Voco] group ER, n = 20) combined with the nanohybrid composite Amaris (Voco) were evaluated.
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!