medigraphic.com
ISSN 1870-199X (Print)
Órgano oficial de la Facultad de Odontología, UNAM

2018, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Rev Odont Mex 2018; 22 (3)

Influence of silane and universal adhesives on adhesion during the repair of a ceromer

Hernández BDC, Cruz GAC, Calvo RJN

Language: Spanish
References: 30
Page: 160-164
PDF size: 235.79 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: There is no definitive protocol for ceromer repairs. Universal adhesives due to their composition and indications may be an alternative for polymeric restorations repair. But the association of silanes with universal adhesives requires more research. Objective: To evaluate and compare the bond strength of two universal adhesives in ceromer - resin interface, associated or not with a silane agent. Material and methods: Six ceromer blocks were made and treated according to the following variables: (A) No treatment, (B) Silane agent, (C) Universal Adhesive 1 + Silane, (D) Universal Adhesive 1, (E) Adhesive Universal 2 + Silane, (F) Universal Adhesive 2 (n = 10). Composite resin was attached to these surfaces and a microtension test was performed. The type of failure was evaluated with a stereomicroscope. Results: The bond strength values of the groups were statistically different (p ‹0.05), except between both universal adhesives were evaluated. Group (B) presented the highest values of adhesive resistance. Groups (C and E) had lower adhesive strength values compared to groups (D and F). The most prevalent type of failure was the adhesive. Conclusion: The associated use of functional silane to universal adhesives does not improve adhesive strength values, so it should be avoided. As a first choice, functionalsilane is recommended, and in the second degree, only use universal adhesives, but do not associate the two materials in the same adhesive process.


REFERENCES

  1. Marcondes M, Souza N, Borguetti F, Burnett LH Jr, Spohr AM. Clinical evaluation of indirect composite resin restorations cemented with different resin cements. J Adhes Dent. 2016; 18 (1): 59-67.

  2. Gordan VV, Riley JL 3rd, Rindal DB, Qvist V, Fellows JL, Dilbone DA et al. Repair or replacement of restorations: A prospective cohort study by dentists in The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. J Am Dent Assoc. 2015; 146 (12): 895-903.

  3. Hickel R, Brüshaver K, Illie N. Repair of restorations - criteria for decision making and clinical recommendations. Dent Mater. 2013; 29 (1): 28-50.

  4. Moncada G, Vildósola P, Fernandez E, Estay J, de Oliveira JO, Martin J. Increased longevity of resins based composite restorations and their adhesive bond. Literature review. Rev Fac Odontol Univ Antioq. 2015; 27 (1): 120-146.

  5. Loomans B, Özcan M. Intraoral repair of direct and indirect restorations: procedures and guidelines. Oper Dent. 2016; (15): 41-43.

  6. Marchesi G, Frassetto A, Mazzoni A, Apolonio F, Diolosŕ M, Cadenaro M et al. Adhesive performance of a multi-mode adhesive system: 1-year in vitro study. J Dent. 2014; 42 (5): 603-612.

  7. Wagner A, Wendler M, Petschelt A, Belli R, Lohbauer U. Bonding performanceof universal adhesives in different etching modes. J Dent. 2014; 42 (7): 800-807.

  8. Kim RJ, Woo JS, Lee IB, Yi YA, Hwang JY, Seo DG. Performance of universal adhesives on bonding to leucite-reinforced ceramic. Biomater Res. 2015; 19: 11.

  9. Pott P, Stiesch M, Eisenburger M. Influence of artificial aging on the shear bond strength of zirconia-composite interfaces after pretreatment with new 10-MDP adhesive systems. J Dent. 2016; 5 (1): 1-10.

  10. Gré C, Andrada M, Monteiro J, Lise D, Deucher C, Ruschel V. Microtensile bond strength of universal adhesive system to deep dentin. Dent Mater. 2014; 30 (1): 104-110.

  11. Giannini M, Makishi P, Almeida A, Moreira P, Marin B, Nikaido T et al. Self-etch adhesive systems: a literature review. Braz Dent J. 2015; 26 (1): 3-10.

  12. Staxrud F, Dahl JE. Silanising agents promote resin-composite repair. Int Dent J. 2015; 65 (6): 311-315.

  13. Zaghloul H, Elkassas D, Haridy M. Effect of incorporation of silane in the bonding agent on the repair potencial of machinable esthetic blocks. Eur J Dent. 2014; 8 (1): 44-52.

  14. ISO. International Organization of Standardization, testing of dental materials to tooth structure. ISO/TS 11405:2015. Geneva: ISO; 2015: Dental Materials.

  15. D’Arcangelo C, Zarow M, De Angelis F, Vadini M, Paolantonio M, Giannoni M et al. Five year retrospective clinical study of indirect composite restoration luted with a light-cured composite in posterior teeth. Clin Oral Investig. 2014; 18 (2): 615-624.

  16. Santos M, Freitas M, Azebedo L, Santos G, Navarro M, Francischone C et al. Clinical evaluation of ceramic in inlays and onlays fabricated with two systems: 12 year follow up. Clin Oral Investig. 2016; 20 (7): 1683-1690.

  17. Fernandez E, Martín J, Vildósola P, Oliveira O, Gordan V, Mjor I et al. Can repair increase the longevity of composite resins? Results of a 10-year clinical trial. J Dent. 2014; 43 (2): 279-286.

  18. Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Loomans BA, Huysmans MC. Longevity of repaired restorations: a practice based study. J Dent. 2012; 40 (10): 829-835.

  19. Fayyaz A, Fareed M, Ehsan S, Baig Q, Noor N. Repair or replacement of defective direct composite restorations: a survey of dentists. Journal Pakistan Dental Association. 2015; 24 (1): 17-21.

  20. Wendler M, Belli R, Panzer R, Skibbe D, Petschelt A, Lohbauer U. Repair bond strength of aged resin composite after different surface and bonding treatments. Materials (Basel). 2016; 9 (7). pii: E547.

  21. Comba L, Bradna P, Lencová E, Dušková J, Devana H. The effect of surface treatment and adhesive system on the durability of composite repairs. Dentistry. 2015; 5 (8): 318.

  22. Rathke A, Tymina Y, Haller B. Effect of different surface treatments on the composite-composite repair bond strength. Clin Oral Investig. 2009; 13 (3): 317-323.

  23. Costa TR, Ferreira SQ, Klein-Júnior CA, Loguercio AD, Reis A. Durability of surface treatments and intermediate agents used for repair of a polished composite. Oper Dent. 2010; 35 (2): 231-237.

  24. Celik C, Cehreli SB, Arthun N. Resin composite repair: quantitative microleakage evaluation of resin-resin and resin-tooth interfaces with different surface treatments. Eur J Dent. 2015; 9 (1): 92-99.

  25. Valente L, Sarkis-Onofre R, Goncalves A, Fernandez E, Loomans B, Moraes R. Repair bond strength of dental composites: systematic review meta-analysis. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives. 2016; 69: 15-26.

  26. Valente L, Manso I, Munchow E, de Moraes R. Repair bond strength of resin composite with experimental primers-effect of formulation variables. J Adhes Sci Technol. 2016; 31 (7): 806-815.

  27. Fuentes M, Escribano N, Baracco B, Romero M, Ceballos L. Effect of indirect composite treatment microtensile bond strength of self-adhesive resin cements. J Clin Exp Dent. 2016; 8 (1): e14-21.

  28. Papacchini F, Monticelli F, Radovic I, Chieffi N, Goracci C, Tay F et al. A study into the application of hydrogen peroxide in composite repair. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2007; 82 (2): 298-304.

  29. Isolan C, Valente L, Munchow E, Basso G, Pimentel A, Schwantz J et al. Bond strength of a universal bonding agent and other contemporary dental adhesives applied on enamel, dentin, composite, and porcelain. Applied Adhesion Science. 2014; 2: 25.

  30. Stawarczyk B, Krawczuk A, Illie N. Tensile bond strength of resin composite repair in vitrousing different surface preparation conditionings to an aged CAD/CAM resin nanoceramic. Clin Oral Investig. 2015; 19 (2): 299-308.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com