Ayse SF, Guler D

Language: English
References: 31
Page: 135-144
PDF size: 248.29 Kb.

Text Extraction

Purpose: The purpose of the present research was to evaluate the effectiveness of self-adhesive composites in amalgam repair as time-saving alternatives to universal bonding-universal composite materials, with or without the usage of Alloy Primer in terms of shear bond strength. Materials and Methods: Fortytwo disc-shaped amalgam samples were prepared by condensing into 6×2 mm holes in acrylic resin blocks, sandblasted with 50 µm Al2O3 and randomly divided into 6 groups according to repair material [Constic (Group C), Fusio Liquid Dentin (Group FLD), Universal bonding+Universal composite (Group Control), Alloy Primer+Constic (Group APC), Alloy Primer+Fusio Liquid Dentin (Group APFLD), Alloy Primer+Universal bonding+Universal composite (Group APControl)]. After shear bond strength test, the fracture modes were determined under a digital microscope. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance and Tukey's post hoc test. Results: The highest shear bond strength values were obtained for Fusio Liquid Dentin, among the three repair materials when Alloy Primer was not applied (p‹0.05). Usage of Alloy Primer increased shear bond strength values of the investigated repair materials to amalgam, except Fusio Liquid Dentin. Conclusion: Within the limitations of the present research, it can be concluded that; the investigated self-adhesive composite materials could be time-saving alternatives to the Universal bonding+Universal composite for the purpose of amalgam repair, in terms of shear bond strength. The clinicians could prefer Fusio Liquid Dentin self-adhesive composite material without Alloy Primer application for the purpose of amalgam repair in non-cooperative patients.

REFERENCES

1. Kanzow P., Wiegand A., Göstemeyer G., Schwendicke F. Understanding the management and teaching of dental restoration repair: Systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys. J Dent. 2018; 69: 1-21.

2. Bichacho N., Pilo R., Brosh T., Berkovich M., Helft M. Shear bond strength of composite resin to fresh amalgam. Oper Dent. 1995; 20 (2): 68-73.

3. Ruse N. D., Sekimoto R. T., Feduik D. The effect of amalgam surface preparation on the shear bond strength between composite and amalgam. Oper Dent. 1995; 20 (5): 180-185.

4. Giannini M., Paulilio LAMS, Ambrosano GMB. Effect of surface roughness on amalgam repair using adhesive systems. Braz Dent J. 2002; 13 (3): 179-183.

5. Watts D. C., Devlin H., Fletcher J. E. Bonding characteristics of a phosphonated anaerobic adhesive to amalgam. J Dent. 1992; 20 (4): 245-249.

6. Özcan M., Vallittu P. K., Huymans M. C., Kalk W., Vahlberg T. Bond strength of resin composite to differently conditioned amalgam. J. Mater Sci: Mater Med. 2006; 17 (1): 7-13.

7. Blum I. R., Hafiana K., Curtis A., Barbour M. E., Attin T., Lynch C. D., Jagger D. C. The effect of surface conditioning on the bond strength of resin composite to amalgam. J. Dent. 2012; 40 (1): 15-21.

8. Balkaya H., Demirbuga S., Çakir N. N., Karadas M., Zorba Y. O. Micro-shear bond strength of universal adhesives used for amalgam repair with or without alloy primer. J. Conserv Dent. 2018; 21 (3): 274-279.

9. Özcan M., Koolman C., Aladag A., Dündar M. Effects of different surface conditioning methods on the bond strength of composite resin to amalgam. Oper Dent. 2011; 36 (3): 318-325.

10. Peterson J., Rizk M., Hoch M., Wiegand A. Bonding performance of self-adhesive flowable composites to enamel, dentin and nano-hybrid composite. Odontology. 2018; 106 (2): 171-180.

11. Vichi A., Margvelashvili M., Goracci C., Papacchini F., Ferrari M. Bonding and sealing ability of a new self-adhering flowable composite resin in class I restorations. Clin Oral Invest. 2013; 17 (6): 1497-506.

12. Goracci C., Margvelashvili M., Giovannetti A., Vichi A., Ferrari M. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with a new self-adhering flowable resin composite. Clin Oral Invest. 2013; 17 (2): 609-617.

13. Poitevin A., De Munck J., Van Ende A., Suyama Y., Mine A., Peumans M., van Meerbeck B. Bonding effectiveness of selfadhesive composites to dentin and enamel. Dent Mater. 2013; 29 (2): 221-230.

14. Gumustas B., Sismanoglu S. Effectiveness of different resin composite materials for repairing noncarious amalgam margin defects. J Conserv Dent. 2018; 21 (6): 627-631.

15. Garcia R. N., Morelli A. E., Silva B. S., Giongo B. M., Pollheim C. P., Largura G. S., Mensch L. F., Costa M. F., Candiotto N. R., Gomes A. C. R. Bonding performance of a self-adhering flowable composite to substrates used in direct technique. RSBO. 2013; 10 (4): 343-349.

16. Garcia R. N., Silva C. S., Silva G. G., Mocellin G., Ozelame J., Fracasso L., Ozelame M. B., Nascimento R. F., Gomes A. C. R. Bonding performance of a self-adhering flowable composite to indirect restorative materials. RSBO. 2014; 11 (1): 6-12.

17. Fu J., Kakuda S., Pan F., Hoshika S., Ting S., Fukuoka A., Bao Y., Ikeda T., Nakaoki Y., Selimovic D., Sano H., Sidhu S. K. Bonding performance of newly developed step-less all-in-one system on dentin. Dent Mat J. 2013; 32: 203-211.

18. Ozel Bektaş O., Eren D., Akin E. G., Akin H. Evaluation of a self-adhering flowable composite in terms micro-shear bond strength and microleakage. Acta Odont Scand. 2013; 71: 541-546.

19. Erdemir U., Sancakli H. S., Sancakli E., Eren M. M., Ozel S., Yucel T., Yildiz E. Shear bond strength of a new self-adhering flowable composite resin for lithium disilicate reinforced CAD/CAM ceramic material. J Adv Prosthodont. 2014; 6 (6): 434-443.

20. Carabba M., Vichi A., Louca C., Ferrari M. Comparison of traditional and simplified methods for repairing CAD/CAM feldspathic ceramics. J Adv Prosthodont. 2017; 9 (4): 257-264.

21. Machado C., Sanchez E., Alapati S., Seghi R., Johnston W. Shear bond strength of the amalgam-resin composite interface. Oper Dent. 2007; 32 (4): 341-346.

22. Nagakane K., Yoshida Y., Hirata I., Fukuda R., Nakayama Y., Shirai K., et al. Analysis of chemical interaction of 4-META with hydroxyapatite using XPS. Dent Mater J. 2007; 25 (4): 645-649.

23. Heft M. W., Gilbert G. H., Dolan T. A., Foerster U. Restoration fractures, cusp fractures and root fragments in a diverse sample of adults: 24 months incidence. JADA. 2000; 131 (10): 1459-1464.

24. Randall C., Vrijhoef M. M., Wilson N. H. Current trends in restorative dentistryin the UK: a delphi approach. J Dent. 2002; 30 (4): 177-187.

25. Özcan M., Barbosa S. H., Melo R. M., Galhano G. A. P., Bottino M. A. Effect of surface conditioning methods on the microtensile bond strength of resin composite to composite after aging conditions. Dent Mater. 2006; 23 (10): 1276-1282.

26. Tyas M. J., Anusavice K. J., Frencken J. E., Mount G. J. Minimal intervention dentistry-a review FDI Commission Project 1-97. Int Dent J. 2000; 50 (1): 1-12.

27. Sardenberg F., Bonifácio C. C., Braga M. M., Imparato J. C., Mendes F. M. Evaluation of the dental structure loss produced during maintenance and replacement of occlusal amalgam restorations. Braz Oral Res. 2008; 22 (3): 242-246.

28. Tuncer S., Demirci M., Tiryaki M., Uysal Ö. The influence of retention hole and adhesive systems on the shear bond strengths of resin composite to amalgam. J Adhes Sci Technol. 2014; 28 (19); 1980-1989.

29. International Organization for Standardization. Dentistry-polymer-based crown and bridge materials. ISO 10477:2004. International Organization for Standardization. Geneva, Switzerland. Accessed http://www.iso.org/ iso/store.htm

30. Wang R., Shi Y., Li T., Pan Y., Cui Y., Xia W. Adhesive interfacial characteristics and the related bonding performance of four self-etching adhesives with different functional monomers applied to dentin. J Dent. 2017; 62: 72-80.

31. Korkmaz F. M., Ates S. M., Caglar Satiroglu I., Baygin O., Duymus Z. Y. Effect of different surface treatments on the repair bond strength of resin composites with titanium. J Adhes Sci Technol. 2019;epub://doi.org/10.1080/01 694243.2019.1643440.