982 resultados para Resin Composite
Resumo:
This study evaluated the cohesive strength of composite using self-etching adhesive systems (SE) in the lubrication of instruments between layers of composite. The specimens were made by using a Teflon (R) device. SE were used at the interface to lubricate the instruments: Group 1(G1) - control group, no lubricant was used; Group 2(G2) -Futurabond (R) M; Group 3(G3) - Optibond (R) All-In-One; Group 4(G4) - Clearfil (R) SE Bond; Group 5(G5) - Futurabond (R) NR; Group 6(G6) - Adper (R) SE Plus; Group 7(G7) - One Up Bond (R) F. Specimens were submitted to the tensile test to evaluate the cohesive strength. Data were submitted to the ANOVA and Tukey tests. ANOVA showed a value of p = 0.00. The average means (SD): G2 = 11.33(+/-3.44) a, G3 = 15.36(+/-4.06) ab, G4 = 18.9(+/-4.72) bc, G7 = 19.62(+/-4.46) bc, G5 = 21.02(+/-5.09) bc, G6 = 23.39(+/-4.17) cd, and G1 = 28.49(+/-2.89) d. All SE decreased the cohesive strength of the composite, except for Adper (R) SE Plus.
Resumo:
Background and Objectives. The adhesion of dental materials is important for the success of treatment. The aim of this study is to evaluate the bond strength of a composite resin applied with a self-etching adhesive system in different dentins after irradiation with Er:YAG and Nd:YAG lasers, observing their morphologic pattern using Scanning Electronic Microscopy (SEM). Materials and Methods. The buccal surface of 72 bovine incisors was worn until exposure of medium depth dentin. The specimens were divided into three groups; GI: normal, GII: demineralized and GIII: hypermineralized dentin. These were also divided into two subgroups; A-irradiated for 30 s with Er:YAG laser in noncontact mode at 40 mJ and 6 Hz and B- irradiated for 30 s with Nd:YAG laser in contact mode at 60 mJ and 10 Hz. The adhesive system Clearfil SE. Bond (Kuraray) and composite resin Tetric Ceram (Vivadent) were applied on the irradiated area by the incremental technique. After storage for 24 h in distilled water at 37 degrees C, the specimens were submitted to the shear strength test in a universal testing machine (EMIC) at a crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/min. Other specimens were made to be analyzed by SEM. Results. The results were statistically analyzed by Analysis of Variance and the Tukey test. Regardless of the type of dentin, the bond strength of specimens irradiated with the Nd:YAG laser (8,94 +/- 2,07) was higher compared to specimens irradiated with the Er:YAG laser (7,03 +/- 2,47); the highest bond strength was obtained for the group of hypermineralized dentin irradiated with the Nd:YAG laser. The SEM analysis showed that the Er:YAG laser caused opening of tubules and the Nd:YAG laser produced areas of fusion as well as regions of opening of dentinal tubules. Conclusions. The dentin showed different morphological patterns and the laser promote alterations on their surfaces, influencing the bond strength of the composite resin. (C) 2010 Laser Institute of America.
Resumo:
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cohesive strength of the composite using different resinous monomers to lubricate instruments used in the Restorative Dental Modeling Insertion Technique (RDMIT).Materials and Methods: The composite specimens were made by using a prefabricated Teflon device. Different resinous monomers were used at the interface to lubricate the instruments, for a total of 72 specimens divided into 6 groups: 1. control group, no resinous monomer was used; 2. Composite Wetting Resin; 3. C & B Liquid; 4. Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Adhesive; 4. Adper Single Bond Adhesive; 6. Prime & Bond NT. Specimens were submitted to the circular area tensile test to evaluate the cohesive strength at the composite interfaces. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey's test (alpha = 0.05).Results: ANOVA showed a value of p < 0.0001, which indicated that there were significant differences among the groups. The means (SD) for the different groups were: Adper Single Bond Adhesive: 26 (12) a; control group: 28 (3) ab; Prime & Bond NT: 32 (12) ab; Composite Wetting Resin: 36 (9) abc; C&B Liquid: 38 (7) bc; Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Adhesive: 46 (10) c. Groups denoted with the same letters were not significantly different. Only Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Adhesive, used for direct restorations, had a statistically significantly higher bond strength than the control group, Adper Single Bond Adhesive, and Prime & Bond NT. Adper Single Bond with Adhesive showed a statistically significantly lower mean value than C & B Liquid.Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that the resinous monomers used for lubricating the instruments in the RDMIT did not alter the mechanical properties of the composite, and therefore did not reduce the cohesive bond strength at the composite interfaces.
Resumo:
An analysis was carried out to observe whether the application or not of a composite surface sealant (CSS), as well the moment for CSS application were able to reduce marginal microleakage in compactable composite resin restoration. All the preparations were restored with a compactable composite resin. The restored teeth were randomly assessed. G1 (control group): finished and polished; G2: finished, polished, etched and cover with CSS; G3: immediately after the restoration done the CSS was applied, then finished and polished; G4: CSS applied immediately after the restoration was done, the finished and polished, etched, and covered with CSS. The specimens were isolated with nail polish, thermocycled, immersed in aqueous solution of silver nitrate, and followed in a photo developing solution. The microleakage scores obtained from the occlusal and cervical walls were analyzed with the Kruskall-Wallis nonparametric test. No microleakage was found at the enamel margins. Comparing the microleakage scores at dentin/cementum margins (p < 0.05) it was found that G3 (p = 0.0162) and G4 (p = 0.0187) were able to reduce microleakage when compared with group G2. However the results were not statistically different from the control group. The application of CSS was not able to completely eliminate marginal microleakage at the dentin/cementum margins.