UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Fracture strength of indirect resin composite laminates to teeth with existing restorations: an evaluation of conditioning protocols


Özcan, M; Mese, A (2009). Fracture strength of indirect resin composite laminates to teeth with existing restorations: an evaluation of conditioning protocols. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry, 11(5):391-397.

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the fracture strength and failure types of indirect resin-based composite laminates bonded to teeth with aged Class III composite restorations that were conditioned according to various protocols. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Maxillary central incisors (N = 60) with window-type preparations received laminates made of a highly-filled resin composite material (Estenia) (10 per group).On the mesial and distal side, Class III cavities (3 x 3 mm) were prepared using ultrasonic burs and filled with resin composite (Quadrant Anterior Shine). The unrestored teeth served as a control group (group 6). All restored teeth (n=50) were thermocycled (5 degrees C to 55 degrees C, 6000X) and subjected to one of the conditioning protocols: (1) air-particle abrasion with alumina particles coated with silica (30-microm SiO2, CoJet)+silanization, (2) air-particle abrasion with alumina particles (50 microm, Al2O3)+silanization, (3) 9.5% hydrofluoric acid (HF) for 90 s (Ultradent)+silanization and (4) protocol of Clearfil Repair Kit, (5) adhesive resin (Quadrant Unibond Sealer). A three-step bonding procedure and dual-polymerizing resin cement (Panavia F 2.0) were employed. The inner surfaces of the laminates were conditioned (CoJet-Sand, 30 mum SiO2) and silanized (ESPE-Sil). All specimens were stored in water at 37 degrees C for one month prior to the fracture test. RESULTS: A significant difference was observed in fracture strength values between the groups (ANOVA, p = 0.0261). The only significant difference was between group 2 (299 +/- 103 N) and group 3 (471 +/- 126 N) (p = 0.0239) (Tukey's test, alpha = 0.05). The majority of failures were type C (35/60) (chipping of the laminate with enamel exposure), followed by type B (21/60) (cohesive failure within the composite laminate). CONCLUSION: The fracture strengths of the laminates tested did not show significant differences, whether they were bonded to existing, aged Class III composite restorations or to intact teeth. The failure types, however, varied between the groups. The lowest strengths were obtained from the air-particle abraded (50 microm, Al2O3) and silanized group.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the fracture strength and failure types of indirect resin-based composite laminates bonded to teeth with aged Class III composite restorations that were conditioned according to various protocols. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Maxillary central incisors (N = 60) with window-type preparations received laminates made of a highly-filled resin composite material (Estenia) (10 per group).On the mesial and distal side, Class III cavities (3 x 3 mm) were prepared using ultrasonic burs and filled with resin composite (Quadrant Anterior Shine). The unrestored teeth served as a control group (group 6). All restored teeth (n=50) were thermocycled (5 degrees C to 55 degrees C, 6000X) and subjected to one of the conditioning protocols: (1) air-particle abrasion with alumina particles coated with silica (30-microm SiO2, CoJet)+silanization, (2) air-particle abrasion with alumina particles (50 microm, Al2O3)+silanization, (3) 9.5% hydrofluoric acid (HF) for 90 s (Ultradent)+silanization and (4) protocol of Clearfil Repair Kit, (5) adhesive resin (Quadrant Unibond Sealer). A three-step bonding procedure and dual-polymerizing resin cement (Panavia F 2.0) were employed. The inner surfaces of the laminates were conditioned (CoJet-Sand, 30 mum SiO2) and silanized (ESPE-Sil). All specimens were stored in water at 37 degrees C for one month prior to the fracture test. RESULTS: A significant difference was observed in fracture strength values between the groups (ANOVA, p = 0.0261). The only significant difference was between group 2 (299 +/- 103 N) and group 3 (471 +/- 126 N) (p = 0.0239) (Tukey's test, alpha = 0.05). The majority of failures were type C (35/60) (chipping of the laminate with enamel exposure), followed by type B (21/60) (cohesive failure within the composite laminate). CONCLUSION: The fracture strengths of the laminates tested did not show significant differences, whether they were bonded to existing, aged Class III composite restorations or to intact teeth. The failure types, however, varied between the groups. The lowest strengths were obtained from the air-particle abraded (50 microm, Al2O3) and silanized group.

Citations

3 citations in Web of Science®
3 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

2 downloads since deposited on 12 Feb 2010
0 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Center for Dental Medicine > Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:15 October 2009
Deposited On:12 Feb 2010 06:09
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 13:54
Publisher:Quintessence Publishing
ISSN:1461-5185
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a17632
Official URL:http://jad.quintessenz.de/?sid=ccdf7bfd
Related URLs: (Publisher)
PubMed ID:19841766
Permanent URL: https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-30453

Download

[img]
Filetype: PDF - Registered users only
Size: 1MB
View at publisher

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations