Marina Pace1, Josué-Junior Pierote2, João-Victor Câmara3, Isabel Barbosa4, Cíntia-Tereza Araújo5, Lucia Prieto2, Guereth-Alexsanderson Carvalho6, Gisele Pereira7, Renato Vianna8, Hana Fried8, Justine Tinoco7, Amara Santos7, Luis-Alexandre Paulillo9. 1. DDS, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Piracicaba Dental School, State University of Campinas, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil. 2. Postdoctoral student, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Piracicaba Dental School, State University of Campinas, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil. 3. Master student, Department of Biological Sciences, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil. 4. PhD, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Piracicaba Dental School, State University of Campinas, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil. 5. Adjunct Professor, Department of Dentistry, Faculty of Health Sciences, Federal University of Jequitinhonha and Mucuri Valleys, Diamantina, Minas Gerais, Brazil. 6. Master student, Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Piauí, Teresina, Piauí, Brazil. 7. Adjunct Professor, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. 8. School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. 9. Titular Professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Piracicaba Dental School, State University of Campinas, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the microtensile strength in the adhesive interface depending on the volume of the composite resin used to restore class I cavities. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-eight human third molars received a standardized class I cavity preparation and they were separated into six experimental groups: G1 - single-bottle adhesive system; G2 - bonding system with load; G3 - single-bottle adhesive associated with low-viscosity composite resin; G4 - loaded adhesive associated with low-viscosity composite; G5 - resin-modified glass ionomer associated with single-bottle adhesive; and G6 - resin-modified glass ionomer associated with loaded adhesive. All cavities were restored with a universal restorative composite. After completing the restorations, the samples were stored for seven days in a stove (37°C) and the microtensile bond strength was evaluated by producing slices and applying axial loading in an Instron universal testing machine at a speed of 0.5 mm/min. The thickness of the intermediate layer formed on the cavity floor to verify the relationship between the volume of restorative composite and the concentration of stresses in the buccal wall. With the data obtained in the microtensile strength test, an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was performed entirely at random. RESULTS: Duncan's test showed that group 4 (Filtek Flow/Optibond Solo Plus) obtained the highest mean of microtensile strength with no statistically significant difference to groups 3 (Filtek Flow/Single Bond), 5 (Vitremer/Single Bond), and 6 (Vitremer/Optibond Solo Plus). It also showed a statistically significant difference to groups 2 (Optibond Solo Plus) and 1 (Single Bond), with no statistical difference between the other groups studied. CONCLUSIONS: The highest mean of microtensile strength was obtained when the volume of the restorative material decreased through the interposition between the material and the adhesive system of a base with low elasticity modulus. Key words:Adhesion, microtensile, composite resin. Copyright:
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the microtensile strength in the adhesive interface depending on the volume of the composite resin used to restore class I cavities. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-eight human third molars received a standardized class I cavity preparation and they were separated into six experimental groups: G1 - single-bottle adhesive system; G2 - bonding system with load; G3 - single-bottle adhesive associated with low-viscosity composite resin; G4 - loaded adhesive associated with low-viscosity composite; G5 - resin-modified glass ionomer associated with single-bottle adhesive; and G6 - resin-modified glass ionomer associated with loaded adhesive. All cavities were restored with a universal restorative composite. After completing the restorations, the samples were stored for seven days in a stove (37°C) and the microtensile bond strength was evaluated by producing slices and applying axial loading in an Instron universal testing machine at a speed of 0.5 mm/min. The thickness of the intermediate layer formed on the cavity floor to verify the relationship between the volume of restorative composite and the concentration of stresses in the buccal wall. With the data obtained in the microtensile strength test, an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was performed entirely at random. RESULTS: Duncan's test showed that group 4 (Filtek Flow/Optibond Solo Plus) obtained the highest mean of microtensile strength with no statistically significant difference to groups 3 (Filtek Flow/Single Bond), 5 (Vitremer/Single Bond), and 6 (Vitremer/Optibond Solo Plus). It also showed a statistically significant difference to groups 2 (Optibond Solo Plus) and 1 (Single Bond), with no statistical difference between the other groups studied. CONCLUSIONS: The highest mean of microtensile strength was obtained when the volume of the restorative material decreased through the interposition between the material and the adhesive system of a base with low elasticity modulus. Key words:Adhesion, microtensile, composite resin. Copyright:
Authors: D H Pashley; R M Carvalho; H Sano; M Nakajima; M Yoshiyama; Y Shono; C A Fernandes; F Tay Journal: J Adhes Dent Date: 1999 Impact factor: 2.359
Authors: Roberto R Braga; Takatsugu Yamamoto; Kenneth Tyler; Leticia C Boaro; Jack L Ferracane; Michael V Swain Journal: Dent Mater Date: 2012-04-04 Impact factor: 5.304