The suitability of different FEA models for studying root fractures caused by wedge effect

Finite element analysis (FEA) utilizing models with different levels of complexity are found in the literature to study the tendency to vertical root fracture caused by post intrusion (""wedge effect""). The objective of this investigation was to verify if some simplifications used in bi-dimensional FEA models are acceptable regarding the analysis of stresses caused by wedge effect. Three plane strain (PS) and two axisymmtric (Axi) models were studied. One PS model represented the apical third of the root entirely, in dentin (PS-nG). The other models included gutta-percha in the apical third, and differed regarding dentin-post relationship: bonded (PS-B and Axi-B) or nonbonded (PS-nB and Axi-nB). Mesh discretization and material properties were similar for all cases. Maximum principal stress (sigma(max)) was analyzed as a response to a 165 N longitudinal load. Stress magnitude and orientation varied widely (PS-nG: 10.3 MPa; PS-B: 0.8 MPa; PS-nB: 10.4 MPa; Axi-13: 0.2 MPa, Axi-nB: 10.8 MPa). Axi-nB was the only model where all (sigma(max) vectors at the apical third were perpendicular to the model plane. Therefore, it is adequate to demonstrate the tendency to vertical root fractures caused by wedge effect. Axi-13 showed only part of the (sigma(max) perpendicular to the model plane while PS models showed sigma(max) on the model plane. In these models, sigma(max) orientation did not represent a situation where vertical root fracture would occur due to wedge effect. Adhesion between post and dentin significantly reduced (c) 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Influence of differently oriented dentin surfaces and the regional variation of specimens on adhesive layer thickness and bond strength

Statement of the Problem: Adhesive systems can spread differently onto a substrate and, consequently, influence bonding. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of differently oriented dentin surfaces and the regional variation of specimens on adhesive layer thickness and microtensile bond strength (MTBS). Materials and Methods: Twenty-four molars were sectioned mesiodistally to expose flat buccal and lingual halves. Standardized drop volumes of adhesive systems (Single Bond [SB] and Prime & Bond 2.1 [PB2.1]) were applied to dentin according to the manufacturer`s instructions. Teeth halves were randomly divided into groups: 1A-SB/parallel to gravity; 1B-SB/perpendicular to gravity; 2A-PB2.1/parallel to gravity; and 2B-PB2.1/perpendicular to gravity. The bonded assemblies were stored in 37 degrees C distilled water for 24 hours and then sectioned to obtain dentin sticks (0.8 mm(2)). The adhesive layer thickness was determined in a light microscope (x200), and after 48 hours the specimens were subjected to MTBS test. Data were analyzed by one-way and two-way analysis of variance and Student-Newman-Keuls tests. Results: Mean values (MPa +/- SD) of MTBS were: 39.1 +/- 12.9 (1A); 32.9 +/- 12.4 (1B); 52.9 +/- 15.2 (2A); and 52.3 +/- 16.5 (2B). The adhesive systems` thicknesses (mu m +/- SD) were: 11.2 +/- 2.9 (1A); 18.1 +/- 7.3 (1B); 4.2 +/- 1.8 (2A); and 3.9 +/- 1.3 (2B). No correlation between bond strength and adhesive layer thickness for both SB and PB2.1 (r = -0.224, p = 0.112 and r = 0.099, p = 0.491, respectively) was observed. Conclusions: The differently oriented dentin surfaces and the regional variation of specimens on the adhesive layer thickness are material-dependent. These variables do not influence the adhesive systems` bond strength to dentin. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE Adhesive systems have different viscosities and spread differently onto a substrate, influencing the bond strength and also the adhesive layer thickness. Adhesive thickness does not influence dentin bond strength, but it may impair adequate solvent evaporation, polymer conversion, and may also determine water sorption and adhesive degradation over time. In the literature, many studies have shown that the adhesive layer is a permeable membrane and can fail over timebecause ofits continuous plasticizing and degradation when in contact with water. Therefore, avoiding thick adhesive layers may minimize these problems and provide long-term success for adhesive restorations.

Microtensile vs Microshear Bond Strength of All-in-One Adhesives to Unground Enamel

Purpose To determine the bond strength to unground enamel of all in one adhesives in comparison with an etch and rinse system and to compare the reliability of microtensile and microshear methods in providing such measurements Materials and Methods The bonding procedure was performed on enamel of 64 extracted molars The tested all in one adhesives were Bond Force (Tokuyama), AdheSE One (Ivoclar Vivadent) and Xeno V (Dentsply) Prime&Bond NT (Dentsply) served as control Microtensile specimens were obtained from 4 teeth per group Twelve teeth per group were used for microshear testing Microtensile specimens that failed prior to testing were included in statistical calculations, they were assigned the lowest value measured in the respective group Failure modes were observed under light microscope and classified (cohesive within substrates, adhesive mixed) Statistically significant differences in bond strength were assessed among the adhesives within each testing method and between microshear and microtensile data for each adhesive Failure mode distributions were compared using the chi square test Results All in-one adhesives had similar microshear and microtensile bond strengths In both testing methods, the etch and rinse system achieved the strongest bond For all adhesives significantly higher bond strengths were measured with the microshear test In microtensile testing specimens bonded with the etch and rinse adhesive exhibited a significantly different distribution of failure modes The coefficients of variation were extremely high for microtensile bond strength data, particularly of all in one adhesives Conclusion The adhesive potential to intact enamel of recently introduced all in-one adhesives was inferior to that of an etch and rinse system When testing bond strength to enamel of all in one adhesives, microshear testing may be a more accurate method than microtensile