A Strain Gauge Analysis of Microstrain Induced by Various Splinting Methods and Acrylic Resin Types for Implant Impressions

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the level of microstrain that is exerted during polymerization of acrylic resins used for splinting during implant impressions. Material and Methods: Two acrylic resins (GC Pattern Resin, Duralay II) and square transfer coping splinting methods were evaluated by means of strain gauge analysis. Two implants were embedded in a polyurethane block, and the abutments were positioned. Sixty specimens were prepared using two square transfer Copings that were rigidly connected to each other using the acrylic resins. The specimens were randomly divided into three groups of 20 each for the splinting methods: Method 1 was a one-piece method; in method 2, the splint was separated and reconnected after 17 minutes; and in method 3, the splint was separated and reconnected after 24 hours. In each group, half the specimens were splinted with GC Pattern Resin and the other half were splinted with Duralay II. Three microstrain measurements were performed by four strain gauges placed on the upper surface of the polyurethane blocks at 5 hours after resin polymerization for all groups. The data were analyzed statistically. Results: Both resin type and splinting method significantly affected microstrain. interaction terms were also significant. Method 1 in combination with Duralay II produced significantly higher microstrain (1,962.1 mu epsilon) than the other methods with this material (method 2: 241.1 mu epsilon; method 3: 181.5 mu epsilon). No significant difference was found between splinting methods in combination with GC Pattern Resin (method 1: 173.8 mu epsilon; method 2: 112.6 mu epsilon; method 3: 105.4 mu epsilon). Conclusions: Because of the high microstrain generated, Duralay II should not be used for one-piece acrylic resin splinting, and separation and reconnection are suggested. For GC Pattern Resin, variations in splinting methods did not significantly affect the microstrain created. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:341-345

Effects of Surface Hydration and Application Method on the Bond Strength of Self-Etching Adhesives to Dentin

The effect of application methods and dentin hydration on the bond strength of three self-etching adhesives (SEA) were evaluated; 195 extracted bovine incisors were used. The buccal surface was ground in order to expose the dentin, which remained 2-mm minimum thickness, measured by a thickness meter through an opening on the lingual surface. Adper Single Bond 2 (TM) was used for the control group. The SEA were applied following two modes of application: passive or active and two hydration states of the dentin surface-dry and wet. After light-curing, composite buildups were made using Grandio (TM) composite. The specimens were sectioned and tested with a microtensile bond strength test. The application method and the hydration state resulted in statistical differences (p = 0.000) making the values of active application for mu TBS to dentin higher than passive application. The wet surfaces showed higher mu TBS to dentin ratios than dry surfaces. There were no statistical differences in mu TBS among the SEA tested but there were differences regarding to control group.

Influence of Methods of Application of Self-etching Adhesive Systems on Adhesive Bond Strength to Enamel

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Effects of Surface Hydration State and Application Method on the Bond Strength of Self-etching Adhesives to Cut Enamel

Purpose: To evaluate the effect of surface hydration state and application method on the microtensile bond strength of one-step self-etching adhesives systems to cut enamel.Materials and Methods: One hundred ninety-five bovine teeth were used. The enamel on the buccal side was flattened with 600-grit SiC paper. For the control group, 15 teeth received Adper Single Bond 2, applied according to manufacturer's recommendations. The other specimens were divided into three groups according to the adhesive system used: Futura Bond M (FM; Voco), Clearfil S-3 Bond (CS; Kuraray), and Optibond All in One (OA; Kerr). For each group, two hydration states were tested: D: blown dry with air; W: the excess of water was removed with absorbent paper. Two application methods were tested: P (passive): the adhesive was simply left on the surface; A (active): the adhesive was rubbed with an applicator point. A coat of Grandio composite resin (Voco) was applied on the surface. The teeth were sectioned to obtain enamel-resin sticks (1 x 1 mm), which underwent microtensile bond testing. The data in MPa were submitted to a three-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (alpha = 5%).Results: The ANOVA showed significant differences for application method and the type of adhesive, but not for hydration state. For the application method, the results of Tukey's test were: P: 31.46 (+/-7.09)a; A: 34.04 (+/-7.19)b. For the type of adhesive, the results were: OA: 31.29 (+/-7.05)a; CS: 32.28 (+/-7.14)a; FM: 34.68 (+/-7.17)b; different lower-case letters indicate statistically significant differences.Conclusion: Active application improved the bond strength to cut enamel. The adhesive Futurabond M showed the highest bond strength to cut enamel.

Micro-Shear Bond Strength of Different Adhesives to Human Dental Enamel

The aim of this study was to evaluate the micro-shear bond strength of 5 adhesive systems to enamel, one single-bottle acid-etch adhesive (O), two self-etching primers (P) and two all-in-one self-etching adhesives (S). Method: Sixty premolar enamel surfaces (buccal or lingual) were ground flat with 400- and 600-grit SiC papers and randomly divided into 5 groups (n=12), according to the adhesive system.. SB2 - Single Bond 2 (O); CSE - Clearfil SE Bond (P); ADS - AdheSE (P); PLP - Adper Prompt L-Pop (S); XE3 - Xeno III (S). Tygon tubing (inner diameter of 0.8mm) restricted the bonding area to obtain the resin composite (Z250) cylinders. After storage in distilled water at 37 degrees C for 24h and thermocycling, micro-shear testing was performed (crosshead speed of 0.5mm/min). Data were submitted to one-way ANOVA and Tukey test (a=5%). Samples were also subjected to stereomicroscopic and SEM evaluations after micro-shear testing. Mean bond strength values (MPa +/- SD) and the results of Tukey test were: SB2: 36.36(+/- 3.34)a; ADS: 33.03(+/- 7.83)a; XE3: 32.76(+/- 5.61)a; CSE: 30.61(+/- 6.68)a; PLP: 22.17(+/- 6.05)b. Groups with the same letter were not statistically different. It can be concluded that no significant difference was there between SB2, ADS, XE3 and CSE, in spite of different etching patterns of these adhesives. Only PLP presented statistically lower bond strengths compared with others. J Clin Pediatr Dent 35(3): 301-304, 2011

BOND STRENGTH DURABILITY of SELF-ETCHING ADHESIVES and RESIN CEMENTS TO DENTIN

Objectives: To evaluate the microtensile bond strength (mu TBS) of one-(Xeno III, Dentsply) and two-step (Tyrian-One Step Plus, Bisco) self-etching adhesive systems bonded to dentin and cemented to chemically cured (C&B Metabond) or light-cured paste of a dual-cure resin cement (Variolink II, Ivoclar) within a short (24 h) and long period of evaluation (90 days). Material and Methods: Forty recently extracted human molars had their roots removed and their occlusal dentin exposed and ground wet with 600-grit SiC paper. After application of one of the adhesives, the resin cement was applied to the bonded surface and a composite resin block was incrementally built up to a height of 5 mm (n = 10). The restored teeth were stored in distilled water at 37 C for 7 days. The teeth were then cut along two axes (x and y), producing beam-shaped specimens with 0.8 mm(2) cross-sectional area, which were subjected to mu TBS testing at a crosshead speed of 0.05 mm/min and stressed to failure after 24 h or 90 days of storage in water. The mu TBS data in MPa were subjected to three-way analysis of variance and Tukey's test (alpha = 0.05). Results: The interaction effect for all three factors was statistically significant (three-way ANOVA, p < 0.001). All eight experimental means (MPa) were compared by the Tukey's test (p < 0.05) and the following results were obtained: Tyrian-One Step Plus /C&B/24 h (22.4 +/- 7.3); Tyrian-One Step Plus /Variolink II/24 h (39.4 +/- 11.6); Xeno III/C&B/24 h (40.3 +/- 12.9); Xeno III/Variolink II/24 h (25.8 +/- 10.5); Tyrian-One Step Plus / C&B/90 d (22.1 +/- 12.8) Tyrian-One Step Plus/VariolinkII/90 d (24.2 +/- 14.2); Xeno III/C&B/90 d (27.0 +/- 13.5); Xeno III/Variolink II/90 d (33.0 +/- 8.9). Conclusions: Xeno III/Variolink II was the luting agent/adhesive combination that provided the most promising bond strength after 90 days of storage in water.

Adhesives with different pHs: Effect on the MTBS of chemically activated and light-activated composites to human dentin

Purpose: To evaluate the bond strength between human dentin and composites, using two light-activated single-bottle total-etch adhesive systems with different pHs combined with chemically activated and light-activated-composites. The tested hypothesis was that the dentin bond strength is not influenced by an adhesive system of low pH, combined with chemically activated or light-activated composites. Material and Method: Flat dentin surfaces of twenty-eight human third molars were allocated in 4 groups (n=7), depending on the adhesive system: (One Step Plus-OS and Prime & Bond NT-PB) and composite (light-activated Filtek Z-100 [Z100] and chemically activated Bisfil 2B [B2B]). Each adhesive system was applied on acid-etched dentin and then one of the composites was added to form a 5 mm-high resin block. The specimens were stored in tap water (37 degrees C/24 h) and sectioned into two axes, x and y. This was done with a diamond disk under coolant irrigation to obtain beams with a cross-section area of approximately 0.8 mm(2). Each specimen was then attached to a custom-made device and submitted to the microtensile test (1 mm.min(-1)). Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's tests (p<0.05). Results: the anticipated hypothesis was not confirmed (p<0.0001). The bond strengths (MPa) were not statistically different between the two adhesive systems when light-activated composite was used (OS+Z100 = 24.7 +/- 7.1(a); PB+Z100 = 23.8 +/- 5.7(a)). However, with use of the chemically activated composite (B2B), PB (7.8 +/- 3.6(b) MPa) showed significantly lower dentin bond strengths than OS (32.2 +/- 7.6(a)). Conclusion: the low pH of the adhesive system can affect the bond of chemically activated composite to dentin. on the other hand, under the present conditions, the low pH did not seem to affect the bond of light-activated composites to dentin significantly.