PubMed · 12116770
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
June Williamson. 2002. Bond failure analysis.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12116770/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
OBJECTIVE: Aim of this study was to observe the efficacy of two different composite cements on the prevention of marginal deterioration around adhesive ceramic inlay restorations, under laboratory conditions, and to test the null hypothesis that different luting procedures cannot affect sealing ability of luted inlays. METHODS: Twenty-six standardized mesio-occlusal Class II cavities were prepared in extracted posterior teeth. Class II inlays were fabricated with IPS Empress II system following the manufacturer's instructions. The samples were divided into two groups of 13 teeth each at random. Group 1: The ceramic inlays of Group 1 were luted using Excite DSC and an experimental self-curing resin cement (Multilink, Vivadent); in this group, Excite DSC was self-activated and not light-cured. Group 2: Excite DSC in combination with a dual-curing resin cement (Variolink II, Vivadent) was used (as control). In this group Excite DSC was light-cured for 20s separately, before resin cement application. The 'wet' bonding technique was followed. Three samples of each group were selected at random for SEM observations, while the other 10 samples were processed for marginal leakage. The bonding mechanism to dentin and resin cement thickness was evaluated. RESULTS: Samples of both groups showed resin tag and adhesive lateral branch formation. In Group 1 the hybrid layer was mainly uniform along the interface between dental substrates and adhesive material, and resin cement thickness was between 20 and 85 microm. At the cervical margin no gap was detected. In Group 2 the cement thickness was between 30 and 110 microm and hybrid layer formation was observed along the interface but at the cervical margin it was not always uniform and continuous. Resin tag formation was uniform in both groups. At cervical margins, 80% of Group 1 samples showed a perfect seal at the dentin-cementum margins, and 90% at enamel margins. Group 2 samples showed only 50% of cervical margins free from leakage and 80% at the occlusal enamel margins. Statistically significant differences were found at cervical margins between the two groups, while no significant differences were found at enamel site. CONCLUSIONS: It can be concluded that the self-curing adhesive-resin cement combination can properly seal Class II porcelain inlays.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of simulated intrapulpal pressure on the shear bond strength (SBS) of a self-etching bonding system (Clearfil Liner Bond II) to both enamel and dentine surfaces. Forty-two caries-free human molar teeth were randomly assigned to two equal groups (n=21). One group of 21 teeth was connected to a special pulpal pressure machine, which is developed to simulate in vivo conditions. The buccal and lingual surfaces of the teeth were prepared with a diamond wheel to create flat dentine and enamel surfaces. A self-etching bonding system was then applied under pulpal pressure and 2.5 mm diameter composite cylinders were bonded to the prepared surfaces. The samples were then stored in distilled water at room temperature for 24 h under pulpal pressure before SBS was tested. The second restored group was used as a control and the teeth were not connected to the pulpal pressure apparatus during material application and test procedures. They were stored for 24 h in distilled water at room temperature before the SBS test. Fracture analysis of the enamel and dentinal surfaces was performed using a stereomicroscope. Shear bond strength values to dentine was significantly reduced with pulpal pressure (P < 0.001). However, in the enamel, SBS was increased (P < 0.001). In the control group, the SBS values to dentine and enamel did not show any significant difference (P > 0.05). Based on these results, it can be concluded that further analysis of enamel histology and bonding mechanisms are needed.
The aim of this study was to identify the presence and pattern of differences in bond failure between tooth types in vivo when bonding orthodontic brackets with the no-mix orthodontic composite adhesive Right-On. In vivo bond failure for a single operator was recorded for 108 consecutive patients undergoing fixed-appliance orthodontic treatment. The bond failure data were analyzed by survival analysis. Time to first failure or censorship was recorded for each bonded attachment. Overall failure in the sample matched previous clinical studies but conflicted with previous ex vivo bond strength data. Mandibular and posterior teeth had significantly higher rates of failure than did maxillary and anterior teeth. The type of attachment used had a significant effect on bond survival. The results of this study confirm that in vivo bond survival is not uniform for all teeth. Comparisons between the findings of this study and those of a previous ex vivo study by the same authors failed to validate ex vivo bond strength testing as clinically relevant.