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

2005, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Rev Odont Mex 2005; 9 (4)

Direct filling materials push resistance test

Barceló SFH, Velásquez MNI, Guerrero IJ

Language: Spanish
References: 29
Page: 178-184
PDF size: 241.45 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Purpose: The aim of this research is to evaluate, by means of the push out method, the bond strength of direct filling materials, in filling at the dentin. Methods: Fifty caries-free bicuspids were extracted for orthodontic or surgical reasons; samples were divided into five groups of 10 samples. One type of each material namely amalgam, composite resin, compomer, auto-cured glass ionomer and resin modified glass ionomer were used in a push test to dislodge them from the dentin disk using a Universal Testing Machine Instron and the force calculated in MPa. The samples recovered after push out were observed and photographed on their contact surfaces with an optical microscope. Results: A statistic significant difference between auto-cured glass ionomer and resin-modified ionomer in comparison with the rest of the materials. Images of the surfaces after push out show shapes of dentin prepared with diamond wheels and particular characteristics of the bond surfaces in every material evaluated. Conclusions: This leaded us that auto-cured glass ionomer and, above all, resin Modified glass ionomer are the best alternative for direct filling for teeth non support occlusion stress.


REFERENCES

  1. Berg JH. The continuous of restorative materials in pediatric dentistry – a review for the clinical. Pediatric Dentistry 1988; 20(2): 93-100.

  2. Brown D. Amalgam In: Dental Materials: 1995 review. J Dent 1997; 25: 173-208.

  3. Gottlieb EW, Retief DH, Bradley E.EL. Microleakage of conventional and high cooper amalgam restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1985; 53: 355-400.

  4. Marek M. The release of mercury from dental amalgam: the mechanism and in vitro testing. J Dent Res 1990; 69: 1167-1174.

  5. Xu and Burgess JO. Fluoride release and compressive strength of fluoride releasing materials. Journal Dental Research 1988; 77 Abstract; 1091-1242 Special Issue A.

  6. Iazzeti G, Burgess JO, Gardiner D. Selected mechanical properties of fluoride-releasing restorative materials. Operative Dentistry 2001; 26:21-26.

  7. Pashley DH. Dentin Bonding: overview of the substrate with respect to adhesive material. Esthet Dent 1991; 3: 46-50.

  8. Triolo PT Jr, Swift EJ Jr. Shear bond strengths of ten dentin adhesive systems. Dent Mater 1992; 8: 370-374.

  9. Schneider BJ, Baumann MA, Watanabe LG, Marshall GW. Dentin shear bond strength of compomers and composites. Dental Material 2000; 16: 15-19.

  10. Salama FS, Tao L. Comparison of gluma bond strength to primary vs permanent teeth. Pediatr Dent 1989; 11: 247-252.

  11. Bordin-Aykroyd S, Sefton J, Davies EH. In vitro bond strength of three current dentin adhesives to primary vs permanent teeth. Dent Mater 1992; 8: 74-78.

  12. Thean HPY, Mok BYY, Chew CL. Bond strengths of glass ionomer restoratives to primary vs permanent dentin. Journal of Dentistry for Children 2000; 67: 112-116.

  13. Alvarez C, Barceló F, Guerrero J, Sáez G, Canseco M. Calculation of contraction rates due to shrinkage in light cured composites. Dent Mater 2004; 20: 228-235.

  14. Watts DC, Kisumbi BK, Toworfe GK. Dimensional changes of resin/ionomer restoratives in aqueous and neutral media. Dental Materials 2000; 16: 89-96.

  15. Jensen SJ, Jorgensen KD. Dimensional and phase changes of dental amalgam. Scand J Dent Res 1985; 93: 351-356.

  16. Pashey DH, Sano H, Ciucchi B, Carvalho RM. Adhesion testing of dentin bonding agents: A review. Dental Materials 1995; 16: 89-96.

  17. Mjor IA, Moorhead JE. Selection of restorative materials, reason for replacement, and longevity of restorations in Florida. Journal American College of Dentists 1998; 65-3: 27-33.

  18. Saez G, Barceló F, Alvarez C, Guerrero J, Morales C. Resin on Dentin repair pull resistance. And new measuring proposal. Journal Dental Research 2001; 80 Abstract: 557.

  19. HY, Chen JM, K H Kunzel KH, Hickel R. Polymerization contraction stress in light cured compomer restorative material. Dental Materials on line march 2003.

  20. Chern LJH, Chen KI, Ju CP. Particle size effect on structure and properties of dispensed Pd-contening dental amalgam. Biomaterials 2002; 23(2): 597-607.

  21. Attin T, Buchalla W, Keilbassa AM, Hellnig E. Curing shrinkage and volumetric changes of resin modified glass ionomer restorative materials. Dental materials 1995; 11(5-6): 359-362.

  22. Musanje L, Shu M, Darvell B-W. Water sorption and mechanical behavior of cosmetic direct restorative materials in artificial saliva. Dental Materials 2001; 17: 394-4001.

  23. Ogata M, Harada N, Yamaguchi S, Nakajima M, Pereira A, Tagami J. Effects of different burs on dentin bond strengths of self-etching primer bonding systems. Operative Dentistry 2000; 26: 375-382.

  24. Neme AL, Evans DB, Maxson BB. Evaluation of dental adhesive systems with Amalgam and resin composite restorations: Comparison of microleakage and bond strength results. Operative Dentistry 2000; 25: 512-519.

  25. Feilzer AJ, De Gee AJ, Davidson CL. Curing contraction of composites and glass-ionomer cements. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1988; 59: 297-300.

  26. Wakefield CW, Draughn RA, Sneed WD, Davis TN. Shear bond strengths of six bonding systems using the pushout method in vitro testing. Operative Dentistry 1998; 23: 69-76.

  27. Johnsen DC. Comparison of primary and permanent teeth. In: Oral development and histology. Avery JA, editor. Philadelphia: B.C. Decker. 1988: 180-190.

  28. Nor JE, Feigal RJ, Dennison JB, Edwards CA. Dentin bonding: SEM comparison of the Resin-dentin interface in primary and permanent teeth. J Dent Res 1996; 75: 1396-1404.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com