Repair bond strength of nanohybrid composite resins with a universal adhesive
Objective: To investigate the repair bond strength of fresh and aged nanohybrid and hybrid composite resins using a universal adhesive (UA). Materials and methods: Fresh and aged substrates were prepared using two nanohybrid (Venus Pearl, Heraus Kulzer; Filtek Supreme XTE, 3 M ESPE) and one hybrid (...
Saved in:
Main Authors: | , , |
---|---|
Format: | Book |
Published: |
Medical Journals Sweden,
2018-01-01T00:00:00Z.
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | Connect to this object online. |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
MARC
LEADER | 00000 am a22000003u 4500 | ||
---|---|---|---|
001 | doaj_f9ce9f16ea9e402ea7be50dfa1c9ebd2 | ||
042 | |a dc | ||
100 | 1 | 0 | |a Pinar Altinci |e author |
700 | 1 | 0 | |a Murat Mutluay |e author |
700 | 1 | 0 | |a Arzu Tezvergil-Mutluay |e author |
245 | 0 | 0 | |a Repair bond strength of nanohybrid composite resins with a universal adhesive |
260 | |b Medical Journals Sweden, |c 2018-01-01T00:00:00Z. | ||
500 | |a 2333-7931 | ||
500 | |a 10.1080/23337931.2017.1412262 | ||
520 | |a Objective: To investigate the repair bond strength of fresh and aged nanohybrid and hybrid composite resins using a universal adhesive (UA). Materials and methods: Fresh and aged substrates were prepared using two nanohybrid (Venus Pearl, Heraus Kulzer; Filtek Supreme XTE, 3 M ESPE) and one hybrid (Z100, 3 M ESPE) composite resin, and randomly assigned to different surface treatments: (1) no treatment (control), (2) surface roughening with 320-grit (SR), (3) SR + UA (iBOND, Heraus Kulzer), (4) SR + Silane (Signum, Ceramic Bond I, Heraeus Kulzer) + UA, (5) SR + Sandblasting (CoJet, 3 M ESPE) + Silane + UA. After surface treatment, fresh composite resin was added to the substrates at 2 mm layer increments to a height of 5 mm, and light cured. Restored specimens were water-stored for 24 h and sectioned to obtain 1.0 × 1.0 mm beams (n = 12), and were either water-stored for 24 h at 37 °C, or water-stored for 24 h, and then thermocycled for 6000 cycles before microtensile bond strength (µTBS) testing. Data were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey's HSD tests (p = .05). Results: Combined treatment of SR, sandblasting, silane and UA provided repair bond strength values comparable to the cohesive strength of each tested resin material (p < .05). Thermocycling significantly reduced the cohesive strength of the composite resins upto 65% (p < .05). Repair bond strengths of UA-treated groups were more stable under thermocycling. Conclusions: Universal adhesive application is a reliable method for composite repair. Sandblasting and silane application slightly increases the repair strength for all substrate types. | ||
546 | |a EN | ||
690 | |a Aged substrate | ||
690 | |a composite repair | ||
690 | |a nanohybrid composite | ||
690 | |a universal adhesive | ||
690 | |a Dentistry | ||
690 | |a RK1-715 | ||
655 | 7 | |a article |2 local | |
786 | 0 | |n Acta Biomaterialia Odontologica Scandinavica, Vol 4, Iss 1, Pp 10-19 (2018) | |
787 | 0 | |n http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23337931.2017.1412262 | |
787 | 0 | |n https://doaj.org/toc/2333-7931 | |
856 | 4 | 1 | |u https://doaj.org/article/f9ce9f16ea9e402ea7be50dfa1c9ebd2 |z Connect to this object online. |