Volume 10, Issue 1 (10-2014)
ijpd 2014, 10(1): 51-58 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
ranjpour M, houshmand T, mirzabeigi S. The effect of enamel moisture on tensile bond strength of composite resin using Single bond in total etch technique. ijpd 2014; 10 (1) :51-58
URL: http://jiapd.ir/article-1-55-en.html
URL: http://jiapd.ir/article-1-55-en.html
Abstract: (7978 Views)
Background and Aim: Tooth colored restorations are so common nowadays due to increased esthetic needs. A successful composite restoration demands a strong bonding with lowest microleakage. Close relation between tooth surface and the other adherents is an important factor in bond strength. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of enamel moisture on tensile bond strength of composite resins using Single bond in total etch technique. Materials and methods: In this in vitro study, 40 premolar teeth were randomly divided into two equal groups. Enamel surface of the teeth were polished using a disk in midbuccal portion. The roots were dissected from 2mm below CEJ and midbuccal portion of the teeth were etched. In one group after rinsing the etchant, tooth surface was dried completely (group I). In the other group the surface moisture was removed using cotton pellet (group II). Single Bond (3M) was applied on desired surfaces and cured. Composite resin was layered over the tooth surface to 4mm height. The teeth were then mounted in the way that they can be placed in the holding device from lingual side. After that the teeth were placed in UTM device under tensile stress with the rate of 0.5 mm/min. the failure surface was examined to detect type and location of the failure. The data were analyzed using T-Test and Fisher's Exact test. Results: Data showed that although mean bond strength in group I was higher but the difference was not statistically significant. Type of failure in two groups was not statistically significant either. Conclusion: Considering that there is no significant difference between the two groups and a little moisture is needed for creation of hybrid layer and bonding to dentine, leaving a bit moisture on enamel equal to that of dentine does not interfere with bonding to enamel and produce a good bond strength.
Type of Article: Research Article |
Subject:
General
Received: 2015/10/4 | Accepted: 2015/10/4 | Published: 2015/10/4
Received: 2015/10/4 | Accepted: 2015/10/4 | Published: 2015/10/4
References
1. Eshghi A, Esfahan RK, Khoroushi M. A simple method for reconstruction of severely damaged
2. primary anterior teeth. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2011 Oct;8(4):221-5 .
3. Togoo RA, Meer Z, Yasin SM, AL-Shaya MS, Saied Khan N. Clinician's choice of restorative
4. materials for children in Ahba city , Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Dental clinics.
5. 2011;3:8-10.
6. Ajami B, EbrahimiM ,Makarem M, Movahedi T. Evaluation of Survival Time of Tooth Color
7. Dental Materials in Primary Anterior Teeth. Journal of Dental Material and Techniques. 2012;
8. 1:11-18.
9. Vichi A, Goracci C, Ferrari M. Clinical study of the self-adhering flowable composite resin
10. Vertiae Flow in class I restorations: Six-month Follow- up. International Dentistry SA.
11. 2012;12:14-22.
12. İşman E, Karaarslan ES, Okşayan R, Tunçdemır AR, Üşümez S, Adanir N, Cebe MA. Inadequate
13. shear bond strengths of self-etch, self-adhesive systems for secure orthodontic bonding. Dent
14. Mater J. 2012;31(6):947-53.
15. Otto M.choi .Vertise Flow: Bond strength to primary Dentin in Varying Wetness.
16. www.kerrdental.com/cms.../vertiseflow_psr_35010rev2_web.pdf.
17. Singla T, Pandit IK, Srivastava N, Gugnani N, Gupta M. An evaluation of microleakage of
18. various glass ionomer based restorative materials in deciduous and permanent teeth: An in vitro
19. study. Saudi Dent J. 2012 Jan;24(1):35-42. doi: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2011.10.002. Epub 2011 Nov 16. [DOI:10.1016/j.sdentj.2011.10.002]
20. Masih S, Thomas AM, Koshy G, Joshi JL. Comparative evaluation of the microleakage of two
21. modified glass ionomer cements on primary molars. An in vivo study. J Indian SocPedodPrev
22. Dent. 2011 Apr-Jun;29(2):135-9.
23. Suresh KS, Nagarathna J. Evaluation of shear bond strength of Fuji II and Fuji IX with and
24. without salivary contamination on deciduous molars-an in vitro study AOSR 2011;1:139-145.
25. Bektas OO, Eren D, Akin EG, Akin H. Evaluation of a self-adhering flowable composite in terms
26. of micro-shear bond strength and microleakage. ActaOdontol Scand. 2013 May-Jul;71(3-4):541-
27. 6 .
28. Xie H, Zhang F, Wu Y, Chen C, Liu W. Dentine bond strength and microleakage of flowable
29. composite, compomer and glass ionomer cement. Aust Dent J. 2008 Dec;53(4):325-31 .
30. Prabhakar AR, Raj S, Raju OS. Comparison of shear bond strength of composite, compomer and
31. resin modified glass ionomer in primary and permanent teeth: an in vitro study. J Indian
32. SocPedodPrev Dent. 2003 Sep;21(3):86-94.
33. Shah P, Gugwad SC, Bhat C, Lodaya R. Effect of three different core materials on the fracture
34. resistance of endodontically treated deciduous mandibular second molars: an in vitro study. J
35. Contemp Dent Pract. 2012 Jan 1;13(1):66-70.
36. Mendes FM, De Benedetto MS, del Conte Zardetto CG, Wanderley MT, Correa MS. Resin
37. composite restoration in primary anterior teeth using short-post technique and strip crowns: a case
38. report. Quintessence Int. 2004 Oct;35(9):689-92.
39. Mangold JT, Kern M. Influence of glass-fiber posts on the fracture resistance and failure pattern
40. of endodontically treated premolars with varying substance loss: an in vitro study. J Prosthet
41. Dent. 2011 Jun;105(6):387-93. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(11)60080-2. [DOI:10.1016/S0022-3913(11)60080-2]
42. Petronijević ,Marković D, Šarčev I, Anđelković A, JeremićKnežević M. Fracture resistance f
43. restored maxillary premolars. Contemporary Materials 2012;3(2):220-225
44. Malekafzali B, Ghassemi A, Mohtavipour S, et al. In-Vitro Investigation of the Fracture Strength
45. of Pulpotomized Primary Molars Restored with Glass Ionomer, Amalgam and Composite Resin
46. with and without Cusp Reduction. Journal Dental School (ShahidBeheshti University).
47. 2013;31(3):131-137.
48. A.Poitevin,J.D.Munck,A.V.Ende,etal.Bonding effectiveness of self-adhesive composites to
49. dentin and enamel.Dental Materials 2012
50. Poitevin A, De Munck J, Van Ende A, Suyama Y, Mine A, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B.
51. Bonding effectiveness of self-adhesive composites to dentin and enamel. Dent Mater. 2013
52. Feb;29(2):221-30. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2012.10.001. Epub 2012 Oct 26. [DOI:10.1016/j.dental.2012.10.001]
53. Abo Al-Hana DA, El-Messairy AA, Shohayb FH, Alhadainy HA. Micro-shear bond strength
54. composites and glass-ionomer used to reinforce root dentin. Tanta Dental journal. 2013(10):58-66
55. Bektas OO, Eren D, Akin EG, Akin H. Evaluation of a self-adhering flowable composite in terms
56. of micro-shear bond strength and microleakage. ActaOdontol Scand. 2013 May-Jul;71(3-4):541-
57. doi: 10.3109/00016357.2012.696697. Epub 2012 Jul 25. [DOI:10.3109/00016357.2012.696697]
58. Yaseen SM, Subba Reddy VV. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of two self-etching
59. adhesives (sixth and seventh generation) on dentin of primary and permanent teeth: an in vitro
60. study. J Indian SocPedodPrev Dent. 2009 Jan-Mar;27(1):33-8. doi: 10.4103/0970-4388.50814. [DOI:10.4103/0970-4388.50814]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
