Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Reinhard Hickel

Publications and source records attributed to Reinhard Hickel.

39 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
PubMed2002

The in vitro dentin bond strengths of two adhesive systems in class I cavities of human molars.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the in vitro dentin bond strengths of two dentin bonding systems in Class I cavities following fatigue load cycling (FLC) with thermal cycling (TC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Class I cavities were prepared in 12 human molars and restored with either Clearfil SE Bond (SE) and Clearfil AP-X resin composite (AP-X) or Single Bond (SB)/AP-X according to the manufacturers' instructions. After water storage for 1 week, untreated controls and test samples were subjected to 50,000 FLC with TC from 5 degrees C to 55 degrees C for 625 cycles and stored in water for 1 week. Microtensile bond strength (MTBS) tests were measured on the floor of the cavities at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Data were statistically analyzed using one- and two-way ANOVA and Fisher's PLSD test at a 5% level of significance. RESULTS: The MPa results were: SE 30.5+/-12.8 (control) and 23.2+/-10.8 (50,000 FLC); SB 5.1+/-9.2 (control) and 4.7+/-5.7 (50,000 FLC). Bond strengths were not statistically significantly affected by FLC (p > 0.05); however, they were influenced by the bonding system (p < 0.05). The MTBS of SE was significantly higher than that of SB (p < 0.05) under FLC and TC test conditions. Over half of the SB specimens debonded during sample preparation, showing blister-like structures, suggesting that an over-wet phenomenon occurred on the cavity floor. CONCLUSION: SE produced excellent dentin bonds that were much stronger than those produced by SB, which was shown to be a technique-sensitive bonding system.

Acid Etching, Dental↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition.

This review provides a survey on the longevity of restorations in stress-bearing posterior cavities and assesses possible reasons for clinical failure. The dental literature, predominantly since 1990, was reviewed for longitudinal, controlled clinical studies and retrospective cross-sectional studies of posterior restorations. Only studies investigating the clinical performance of restorations in permanent teeth were included. Longevity and annual failure rates of amalgam, direct composite restorations, compomers, glass ionomers and derivative products, composite and ceramic inlays and cast gold restorations were determined for Class I and II cavities. Mean (SD) annual failure rates in posterior stress-bearing cavities are: 3.0% (1.9) for amalgam restorations, 2.2% (2.0) for direct composites, 3.6% (4.2) for direct composites with inserts, 1.1% (1.2) for compomer restorations, 7.2% (5.6) for regular glass ionomer restorations, 7.1% (2.8) for tunnel glass ionomers, 6.0% (4.6) for ART glass ionomers, 2.9% (2.6) for composite inlays, 1.9% (1.8) for ceramic restorations, 1.7% (1.6) for CAD/CAM ceramic restorations and 1.4% (1.4) for cast gold inlays and onlays. Publications from 1990 forward showed better results. Indirect restorations exhibited a significantly lower mean annual failure rate than direct techniques (p=0.0031). Longevity of dental restorations is dependent upon many different factors, including material, patient- and dentist-related. Principal reasons for failure were secondary caries, fracture, marginal deficiencies, wear and postoperative sensitivity. We need to learn to distinguish between reasons that cause early failures and those that are responsible for restoration loss after several years of service.

Bicuspid↗