Propriedades físicas e mecânicas de cimentos de ionômero de vidro encapsulados e não encapsulados

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

Resposta dos tecidos periodontais aos cimentos de silicato tricálcico associado ao óxido de zircônio ou óxido de nióbio usados no selamento de perfurações de furca em molares de ratos

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

Propriedades físicas e mecânicas de cimentos de ionômero de vidro encapsulados e não encapsulados

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

Resposta dos tecidos periodontais aos cimentos de silicato tricálcico associado ao óxido de zircônio ou óxido de nióbio usados no selamento de perfurações de furca em molares de ratos

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

Eroded dentin does not jeopardize the bond strength of adhesive restorative materials

This in vitro study evaluated the bond strength of adhesive restorative materials to sound and eroded dentin. Thirty-six bovine incisors were embedded in acrylic resin and ground to obtain flat buccal dentin surfaces. Specimens were randomly allocated in 2 groups: sound dentin (immersion in artificial saliva) and eroded dentin (pH cycling model - 3x / cola drink for 7 days). Specimens were then reassigned according to restorative material: glass ionomer cement (Ketac (TM) Molar Easy Mix), resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Vitremer (TM)) or adhesive system with resin composite (Adper Single Bond 2 + Filtek Z250). Polyethylene tubes with an internal diameter of 0.76 mm were placed over the dentin and filled with the material. The microshear bond test was performed after 24 h of water storage at 37 degrees C. The failure mode was evaluated using a stereomicroscope (400x). Bond strength data were analyzed with two-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc tests (alpha = 0.05). Eroded dentin showed bond strength values similar to those for sound dentin for all materials. The adhesive system showed the highest bond strength values, regardless of the substrate (p < 0.0001). For all groups, the adhesive/mixed failure prevailed. In conclusion, adhesive materials may be used in eroded dentin without jeopardizing the bonding quality. It is preferable to use an etch-and-rinse adhesive system because it shows the highest bond strength values compared with the glass ionomer cements tested.

Micro-mechanical bond strength tests for the assessment of the adhesion of GIC to dentine

Background. The aim of this study is to critically evaluate the bond strength (BS) of Glass-Ionomer Cements (GIC) to dentine with microtensile (mu TBS) and microshear (mu SBS) BS tests by assessing their rankings and failure patterns. Methods. Samples were made on flat dentine surfaces and submitted to mTBS and mSBS. The materials used were: high viscosity GIC (Ketac (TM) Molar Aplicap-KM), resin-modified GIC (Fuji II-FII), nano-filled resin-modified GIC (Ketac (TM) N100-N100) and an etch-and-rinse adhesive system with a composite resin (Adper (TM) Single Bond 2 and Z100 (TM)-Z100). All tests were performed with a Universal Testing Machine (24 h water storage, crosshead speed of 1 mm/min). Debonded surfaces were examined with a stereomicroscope (x40) to identify the failure mode. The data was analyzed with two-way ANOVA (p < 0.05) and LSD test. Results. Means were statistically different regarding the tests and materials, indicating that values for BS obtained for each material depend on the test performed. Failure analysis revealed that failures produced by mTBS were mainly cohesive for KM and FII. mu SBS failures were mainly adhesive or mixed for all materials. For the mTBS, the rank was Z100 > FII > KM = N100, whereas for the mSBS it was Z100 = FII = KM > N100. Conclusion: It may be concluded that distinct micro-mechanical tests present different failure patterns and rankings depending on the material to be considered.

Bonding of restorative materials to dentin with various luting agents

The aim was to compare eight types of luting agents when used to bond six indirect, laboratory restorative materials to dentin. Cylinders of the six restorative materials (Esteticor Avenir [gold alloy], Tritan [titanium], NobelRondo [feldspathic porcelain], Finesse All-Ceramic [leucite-glass ceramic], Lava [zirconia], and Sinfony [resin composite]) were ground and air-abraded. Cylinders of feldspathic porcelain and glass ceramic were additionally etched with hydrofluoric acid and were silane-treated. The cylinders were luted to ground human dentin with eight luting agents (DeTrey Zinc [zinc phosphate cement], Fuji I [conventional glass ionomer cement], Fuji Plus [resin-modified glass ionomer cement], Variolink II [conventional etch-and-rinse resin cement], Panavia F2.0 and Multilink [self-etch resin cements], and RelyX Unicem Aplicap and Maxcem [self-adhesive resin cements]). After water storage at 37°C for one week, the shear bond strength of the specimens (n=8/group) was measured, and the fracture mode was stereomicroscopically examined. Bond strength data were analyzed with two-factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Newman-Keuls' Multiple Range Test (?=0.05). Both the restorative material and the luting agent had a significant effect on bond strength, and significant interaction was noted between the two variables. Zinc phosphate cement and glass ionomer cements produced the lowest bond strengths, whereas the highest bond strengths were found with the two self-etch and one of the self-adhesive resin cements. Generally, the fracture mode varied markedly with the restorative material. The luting agents had a bigger influence on bond strength between restorative materials and dentin than was seen with the restorative material.

Dentinhaftung von Zementen. Der Haftverbund von Zementen mit Dentin in Kombination mit verschiedenen indirekten Restaurationsmaterialien

Einleitung: Die Anzahl zahnärztlicher Zemente sowie Restaurationsmaterialien steigt stetig. Die richtige Zementwahl für einen zuverlässigen Haftverbund zwischen Restaurationsmaterial und Zahnsubstanz ist von Interesse für den Kliniker. Ziel der vorliegenden in vitro-Studie war es daher, den Dentinhaftverbund von verschiedenen Zementen in Kombination mit verschiedenen indirekten Restaurationsmaterialien zu untersuchen. Material und Methoden: Zylindrische Probekörper aus sechs Restaurationsmaterialien (Goldlegierung, Titan, Feldspat-Keramik, Leuzit-Glaskeramik, Zirkon sowie Komposit) wurden an einem Ende plangeschliffen und sandgestrahlt. Die Zylinder aus Feldspat-Keramik und Leuzit-Glaskeramik wurden zusätzlich mit Flusssäure geätzt und silanisiert. Die Zylinder wurden anschliessend mit acht Zementen auf plangeschliffenes Dentin extrahierter menschlicher Zähne zementiert (ein Zink-Phosphatzement (DeTrey Zinc), ein konventioneller Glasionomerzement (Fuji I), ein kunststoffmodifizierter Glasionomerzement (Fuji Plus), ein "etch-&-rinse" Kompositzement (Variolink II), zwei "self-etch" Kompositzemente (Panavia F2.0 und Multilink) und zwei "self-adhesive" Kompositzemente (RelyX Unicem Aplicap und Maxcem)). Nach einwöchiger Wasserlagerung bei 37°C wurden die Dentinhaftwerte der Zylinder (n=8 pro Gruppe) mittels Scherkraft-Test gemessen. Zusätzlich wurde das Frakturmuster unter dem Lichtmikroskop bestimmt. Die Haftwerte wurden mittels zweifaktorieller ANOVA und einem post hoc-Test analysiert (Signifikanzniveau α = 0.05). Resultate: Sowohl das Restaurationsmaterial wie auch der Zement hatten einen statistisch signifikanten Effekt auf den Haftverbund. Der Zink-Phosphatzement sowie beide Glasionomerzemente zeigten die niedrigsten Haftwerte. Die höchsten Haftwerte wurden mit beiden "self-etch" und einem der zwei "self-adhesive" Kompositzementen erzielt. Im Allgemeinen variierte das Frakturmuster deutlich je nach Zement und Restaurationsmaterial. Schlussfolgerungen: Der Dentinhaftverbund wurde stärker vom Zement beeinflusst als vom Restaurationsmaterial. Die Kompositzemente erzielten im Grossen und Ganzen die höchsten Haftwerte.

Osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis (OOKP) and the testing of three different adhesives for bonding bovine teeth with optical poly-(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) cylinder.

AIM Preparation of the lamina during osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis (OOKP) design is complex, and its longevity and watertightness important. To date, only acrylic bone cements have been used for bonding the optical cylinder to the tooth dentine. Our aim was to evaluate different dental adhesives for OOKP preparation. METHODS Specimens of bovine teeth were produced by preparing 1.5-mm thick dentine slices with holes having a diameter of 3.5 mm. Each group (n=10 per group) was luted with either classic poly-(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) bone cement, universal resin cement or glass ionomer cement. All specimens underwent force measurement using a uniaxial traction machine. RESULTS The highest mean force required to break the bond was measured for PMMA bone cement (128.2 N) followed by universal resin cement (127.9 N), with no statistically significant difference. Glass ionomer cement showed significantly lower force resistance (78.1 N). CONCLUSIONS Excellent bonding strength combined with easy application was found for universal resin cement, and thus, it is a potential alternative to acrylic bone cement in OOKP preparation.

Microfiltración en restauraciones coronarias completas libres de metal

En el presente trabajo se estudió la microfiltración de núcleos de alúmina cementados con cemento de resina autoacondicionante y con cemento de ionómero de vidrio convencional. Una vez preparadas las muestras se sumergieron en azul de metileno, para luego ser cortadas longitudinalmente. Los cortes fueron observados en una lupa estereoscópica, estableciéndose su grado de filtración por penetración del colorante. El análisis estadístico demostró que las muestras cementadas con cemento de resina tuvieron menor filtración que las cementadas con ionómero de vidrio.

Influência da densidade tubular em diferentes profundidades dentinárias na estabilidade de união de cimentos de iônomero de vidro

O objetivo do estudo foi avaliar a influência da densidade tubular em diferentes profundidades dentinárias na estabilidade de união de dois cimentos de ionômero de vidro (CIV) de alta viscosidade. Vinte terceiros molares foram alocados em 6 grupos experimentais, de acordo com a profundidade da dentina - proximal, oclusal superficial ou oclusal profunda, e os CIVs - Fuji IX (GC Corp.) e Ketac(TM) Molar Easy Mix (3M/ESPE). Inicialmente os dentes foram cortados a fim de se obter fatias de aproximadamente 1 mm de espessura de dentina proximal, oclusal superficial e profunda. Em seguida, foi realizado uma análise topográfica das secções das diferentes superfícies e profundidades em microscopia confocal a laser (100X) para obtenção das médias da densidade tubular em cada profundidade. Cânulas de polietileno foram então posicionadas sobre as secções de dentina pré-tratadas e preenchidas pelos CIVs. Os espécimes foram armazenados em água destilada por 24 h e 12 meses a 37°C, em seguida foram submetidos ao ensaio de microcisalhamento (0,5 mm/min). Após o ensaio, foi realizada a análise do padrão de fratura em estereomicroscópio (400X). Os dados obtidos foram submetidos à Análise de Variância para dados repetidos, seguido do teste de Tukey (?=5%). Verificamos que a densidade dos túbulos dentinários, em diferentes profundidades de molares permanentes, é inversamente proporcional a resistência de união de cimentos de ionômero de vidro de alta viscosidade. Foi ainda observado em todos os grupos que a resistência de união após 24 horas é maior do que em 12 meses, indicando degradação da interface adesiva ao longo do tempo.

Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands

Background: Orthodontic treatment involves using fixed or removable appliances (dental braces) to correct the positions of teeth. It has been shown that the quality of treatment result obtained with fixed appliances is much better than with removable appliances. Fixed appliances are, therefore, favoured by most orthodontists for treatment. The success of a fixed orthodontic appliance depends on the metal attachments (brackets and bands) being attached securely to the teeth so that they do not become loose during treatment. Brackets are usually attached to the front and side teeth, whereas bands (metal rings that go round the teeth) are more commonly used on the back teeth (molars). A number of adhesives are available to attach bands to teeth and it is important to understand which group of adhesives bond most reliably, as well as reducing or preventing dental decay during the treatment period. :Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bands to teeth during fixed appliance treatment, in terms of: (1) how often the bands come off during treatment; and (2) whether they protect the banded teeth against decay during fixed appliance treatment. Search methods: The following electronic databases were searched: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (searched 2 June 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 5) in the Cochrane Library (searched 2 June 2016), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 2 June 2016) and EMBASE Ovid (1980 to 2 June 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. Selection criteria: Randomised and controlled clinical trials (RCTs and CCTs) (including split-mouth studies) of adhesives used to attach orthodontic bands to molar teeth were selected. Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) who had bands attached to molars were included. Data collection and analysis: All review authors were involved in study selection, validity assessment and data extraction without blinding to the authors, adhesives used or results obtained. All disagreements were resolved by discussion. Main results: Five RCTs and three CCTs were identified as meeting the review's inclusion criteria. All the included trials were of split-mouth design. Four trials compared chemically cured zinc phosphate and chemically cured glass ionomer; three trials compared chemically cured glass ionomer cement with light cured compomer; one trial compared chemically cured glass ionomer with a chemically cured glass phosphonate. Data analysis was often inappropriate within the studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Authors' conclusions: There is insufficient high quality evidence with regard to the most effective adhesive for attaching orthodontic bands to molar teeth. Further RCTs are required.

Push-out bond strengths of different dental cements used to cement glass fiber posts

Statement of problem: Since the introduction of glass fiber posts, irreversible vertical root fractures have become a rare occurrence; however, adhesive failure has become the primary failure mode. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the push-out bond strength of glass fiber posts cemented with different luting agents on 3 segments of the root. Material and methods: Eighty human maxillary canines with similar root lengths were randomly divided into 8 groups (n=10) according to the cement assessed (Rely X luting, Luting and Lining, Ketac Cem, Rely X ARC, Biscem, Duo-link, Rely X U100, and Variolink II). After standardized post space preparation, the root dentin was pretreated for dualpolymerizing resin cements and untreated for the other cements. The mixed luting cement paste was inserted into post spaces with a spiral file and applied to the post surface that was seated into the canal. After 7 days, the teeth were sectioned perpendicular to their long axis into 1-mm-thick sections. The push-out test was performed at a speed of 0.5 mm/min until extrusion of the post occurred. The results were evaluated by 2-way ANOVA and the all pairwise multiple comparison procedures (Tukey test) (?=.05). Results: ANOVA showed that the type of interaction between cement and root location significantly influenced the push-out strength (P<.05). The highest push-out strength results with root location were obtained with Luting and Lining (S3) (19.5 ±4.9 MPa), Ketac Cem (S2) (18.6 ±5.5 MPa), and Luting and Lining (S1) (18.0 ±7.6 MPa). The lowest mean values were recorded with Variolink II (S1) (4.6 ±4.0 MPa), Variolink II (S2) (1.6 ±1.5 MPa), and Rely X ARC (S3) (0.9 ±1.1 MPa). Conclusions: Self-adhesive cements and glass ionomer cements showed significantly higher values compared to dual-polymerizing resin cements. In all root segments, dual-polymerizing resin cements provided significantly lower bond strength. Significant differences among root segments were found only for Duo-link cement.

Fracture Mechanics Analysis of the Dentine-Luting Cement Interface.

The objectives of this study were to determine the fracture toughness of adhesive interfaces between dentine and clinically relevant, thin layers of dental luting cements. Cements tested included a conventional glass-ionomer, F (Fuji I), a resin-modified glass-ionomer, FP (Fuji Plus) and a compomer cement, D (DyractCem). Ten miniature short-bar chevron notch specimens were manufactured for each cement, each comprising a 40 µm thick chevron of lute, between two 1.5 mm thick blocks of bovine dentine, encased in resin composite. The interfacial KIC results (MN/m3/2) were median (range): F; 0.152 (0.14-0.16), FP; 0.306 (0.27-0.37), D; 0.351 (0.31-0.37). Non-parametric statistical analysis showed that the fracture toughness of F was significantly lower (p

Quantification of all-ceramic crown margin surface profile from try-in to 1-week post-cementation

To use profilometry to assess the margin surface profile of all-ceramic crowns (ACC’s) at try-in and 1-week after cementation with dual-cured resin (DC, RelyX ARC, 3 M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA), self-adhesive dual-cured resin (SADC, RelyX Unicem, 3 M ESPE), light-cured resin (LC, RelyX Veneer, 3 M ESPE) or chemically cured resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI, RelyX Luting Plus, 3 M ESPE) luting cement. Methods: Forty, sound, extracted, human, premolar teeth underwent a standardised preparation for ACC’s. IPS Empress (Ivoclar-Vivadent, Liechtenstein) crowns of standard dimensions were fabricated and 10 luted with each cement and stored in water for 7 days. Three groups of serial profiles were taken, the first of the tooth preparation, the second of the crown margins at try-in and lastly of the crown margins after cementation and 7 days water storage. Results: There were no significant differences in the crown margin surface profile between the four cement groups at try-in. The change in crown margin position between try-in and post-cementation was significantly greater for DC than for LC and RMGI. SADC was not significantly different to the other cements. There were no significant differences in the crown margin extensions between the four cement groups, however most of the IPS Empress ACC’s in this study were underextended but this was not statistically significant. Conclusions: IPS Empress ACC’s seated more fully with LC and RMGI than with DC cement