Effect of microwave disinfection procedures on torsional bond strengths of two hard chairside denture reline materials

Purpose: This study evaluated the potential effects of denture base resin water storage time and an effective denture disinfection method (microwave irradiation at 650 W for 6 minutes) on the torsional bond strength between two hard chairside reline resins (GC Reline and New Truliner) and one heat-polymerizing denture base acrylic resin (Lucitone 199). Materials and Methods: Cylindrical (30 x 3.9 mm) denture base specimens (n = 160) were stored in water at 37°C (2 or 30 days) before bonding. A section (3.0 mm) was removed from the center of the specimens, surfaces prepared, and the reline materials packed into the space. After polymerization, specimens were divided into four groups (n = 10): Group 1 (G1) - tests performed after bonding; Group 2 (G2) - specimens immersed in water (200 ml) and irradiated twice (650 W for 6 minutes); Group 3 (G3) - specimens irradiated daily until seven cycles of disinfection; Group 4 (G4) - specimens immersed in water (37°C) for 7 days. Specimens were submitted to a torsional test (0.1 Nm/min), and the torsional strengths (MPa) and the mode of failure were recorded. Data from each reline material were analyzed by a two-way analysis of variance, followed by Neuman-Keuls test (p = 0.05). Results: For both Lucitone 199 water storage periods, before bonding to GC Reline resin, the mean torsional strengths of G2 (2 days - 138 MPa; 30 days - 132 MPa), G3 (2 days - 126 MPa; 30 days - 130 MPa), and G4 (2 days - 130 MPa; 30 days - 137 MPa) were significantly higher (p < 0.05) than G1 (2 days - 108 MPa; 30 days - 115 MPa). Similar results were found for Lucitone 199 specimens bonded to New Truliner resin, with G1 specimens (2 days - 73 MPa; 30 days - 71 MPa) exhibiting significantly lower mean torsional bond strength (p < 0.05) than G2 (2 day - 86 MPa; 30 days - 90 MPa), G3 (2 days - 82 MPa; 30 days - 82 MPa), and G4 specimens (2 days - 78 MPa; 30 days - 79 MPa). The adhesion of both materials was not affected by water storage time of Lucitone 199 (p > 0.05). GC reline showed a mixed mode of failure (adhesive/cohesive) and New Truliner failed adhesively. Conclusions: Up to seven microwave disinfection cycles did not decrease the torsional bond strengths between the hard reline resins, GC Reline and New Truliner to the denture base resin Lucitone 199. The effect of additional disinfection cycles on reline material may be clinically significant and requires further study. Copyright © 2006 by The American College of Prosthodontists.

Bond strength of hard chairside reline resins to a rapid polymerizing denture base resin before and after thermal cycling

Purpose: This study assessed the shear bond strength of 4 hard chairside reline resins (Kooliner, Tokuso Rebase Fast, Duraliner II, Ufi Gel Hard) to a rapid polymerizing denture base resin (QC-20) processed using 2 polymerization cycles (A or B), before and after thermal cycling. Materials and Methods: Cylinders (3.5 mm x 5.0 mm) of the reline resins were bonded to cylinders of QC-20 polymerized using cycle A (boiling water-20 minutes) or B (boiling water; remove heat-20 minutes; boiling water-20 minutes). For each reline resin/polymerization cycle combination, 10 specimens (groups CAt e CBt) were thermally cycled (5 and 55°C; dwell time 30 seconds; 2,000 cycles); the other 10 were tested without thermal cycling (groups CAwt ad CBwt). Shear bond tests (0.5 mm/min) were performed on the specimens and the failure mode was assessed. Data were analyzed by 3-way ANOVA and Newman-Keuls post-hoc test (α=.05). Results: QC-20 resin demonstrated the lowest bond strengths among the reline materials (P<.05) and mainly failed cohesively. Overall, the bond strength of the hard chairside reline resins were similar (10.09±1.40 to 15.17±1.73 MPa) and most of the failures were adhesive/cohesive (mixed mode). However, Ufi Gel Hard bonded to QC-20 polymerized using cycle A and not thermally cycled showed the highest bond strength (P<.001). When Tokuso Rebase Fast and Duraliner II were bonded to QC-20 resin polymerized using cycle A, the bond strength was increased (P=.043) after thermal cycling. Conclusions: QC-20 displayed the lowest bond strength values in all groups. In general, the bond strengths of the hard chairside reline resins were comparable and not affected by polymerization cycle of QC-20 resin and thermal cycling.

Does the thickness of the resin cement affect the bond strength of a fiber post to the root dentin?

This study aimed to evaluate the influence of cement thickness on the bond strength of a fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) post system to the root dentin. Eighteen single-rooted human teeth were decoronated (length: 16 mm), the canals were prepared, and the specimens were randomly allocated to 2 groups (n = 9): group 1 (low cement thickness), in which size 3 FRC posts were cemented using adhesive plus resin cement; and group 2 (high cement thickness), in which size 1 FRC posts were cemented as in group 1. Specimens were sectioned, producing 5 samples (thickness: 1.5 mm). For cement thickness evaluation, photographs of the samples were taken using an optical microscope, and the images were analyzed. Each sample was tested in push-out, and data were statistically analyzed. Bond strengths of groups 1 and 2 did not show significant differences (P = .558), but the cement thicknesses for these groups were significantly different (P < .0001). The increase in cement thickness did not significantly affect the bond strength (r2 = 0.1389, P = .936). Increased cement thickness surrounding the FRC post did not impair the bond strength.

Bond strength of adhesive systems to human tooth enamel

The purpose of this study was to evaluate in vitro three adhesive systems: a total etching single-component system (G1 Prime & Bond 2.1), a self-etching primer (G2 Clearfil SE Bond), and a self-etching adhesive (G3 One Up Bond F), through shear bond strength to enamel of human teeth, evaluating the type of fracture through stereomicroscopy, following the ISO guidance on adhesive testing. Thirty sound premolars were bisected mesiodistally and the buccal and lingual surfaces were embedded in acrylic resin, polished up to 600-grit sandpapers, and randomly assigned to three experimental groups (n = 20). Composite resin cylinders were added to the tested surfaces. The specimens were kept in distilled water (37°C/24 h), thermocycled for 500 cycles (5°C-55°C) and submitted to shear testing at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The type of fracture was analyzed under stereomicroscopy and the data were submitted to Anova, Tukey and Chi-squared (5%) statistical analyses. The mean adhesive strengths were G1: 18.13 ± 6.49 MPa, (55% of resin cohesive fractures); G2: 17.12 ± 5.80 MPa (90% of adhesive fractures); and G3: 10.47 ± 3.14 MPa (85% of adhesive fractures). In terms of bond strength, there were no significant differences between G1 and G2, and G3 was significantly different from the other groups. G1 presented a different type of fracture from that of G2 and G3. In conclusion, although the total etching and self-etching systems presented similar shear bond strength values, the types of fracture presented by them were different, which can have clinical implications.

Tensile bond strength of self-etching versus total-etching adhesive systems under different dentinal substrate conditions

The use of acid etchants to produce surface demineralization and collagen network exposure, allowing adhesive monomers interdiffusion and consequently the formation of a hybrid layer, has been considered the most efficient mechanism of dentin bonding. The aim of this study was to compare the tensile bond strength to dentin of three adhesive systems, two self-etching ones (Clearfil SE Bond - CSEB and One Up Bond F - OUBF) and one total-etching one (Single Bond - SB), under three dentinal substrate conditions (wet, dry and re-wet). Ninety human, freshly extracted third molars were sectioned at the occlusal surface to remove enamel and to form a flat dentin wall. The specimens were restored with composite resin (Filtek Z250) and submitted to tensile bond strength testing (TBS) in an MTS 810. The data were submitted to two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (p = 0.05). Wet dentin presented the highest TBS values for SB and CSEB. Dry dentin and re-wet produced significantly lower TBS values when using SB. OUBF was not affected by the different conditions of the dentin substrate, producing similar TBS values regardless of the surface pretreatments.

Microtensile bond strength of a resin cement to silica-coated and silanized in-ceram zirconia before and after aging

Purpose: This study compared the microtensile bond strength of resin-based cement (Panavia F) to silica-coated, silanized, glass-infiltrated high-alumina zirconia (In-Ceram Zirconia) ceramic in dry conditions and after various aging regimens. Materials and Methods: The specimens were placed in 1 of 4 groups: group 1: dry conditions (immediate testing without aging); group 2: water storage at 37°C for 150 days; group 3: 150 days of water storage followed by thermocycling (× 12,000, 5°C to 55°C); group 4: water storage for 300 days; group 5: water storage for 300 days followed by thermocycling. Results: Group 1 showed a significantly higher microtensile bond strength value (26.2 ± 1 MPa) than the other aging regimens (6.5 ± 1, 6.2 ± 2, 4.5 ± 1, 4.3 ± 1 MPa for groups 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively) (P < .01). Conclusion: Satisfactory results were seen in dry conditions, but water storage and thermocycling resulted in significantly weaker bonds between the resin cement and the zirconia.

Bond strength of acrylic teeth to denture base resin after various surface conditioning methods before and after thermocycling

This study aimed to evaluate the durability of adhesion between acrylic teeth and denture base acrylic resin. The base surfaces of 24 acrylic teeth were flatted and submitted to 4 surface treatment methods: SM1 (control): No SM; SM2: application of a methyl methacrylate-based bonding agent (Vitacol); SM3: air abrasion with 30-μm silicone oxide plus silane; SM4: SM3 plus SM2. A heat-polymerized acrylic resin was applied to the teeth. Thereafter, bar specimens were produced for the microtensile test at dry and thermocyled conditions (60 days water storage followed by 12,000 cycles). The results showed that bond strength was significantly affected by the SM (P < .0001) (SM4 = SM2 > SM3 > SM1) and storage regimens (P < .0001) (dry > thermocycled). The methyl methacrylate-based adhesive showed the highest bond strength.

Tensile bond strength: Evaluation of four current adhesive systems in abraded enamel and deep dentin

This study aimed to evaluate the tensile bond strength of adhesive systems in abraded enamel and deep dentin of the occlusal surface of forty human molar teeth. Enamel surfaces as well as the rest of the teeth were coated with epoxy resin and regularized and polished with silicon carbide sandpapers. The 40 teeth were randomized into eight groups of five teeth per group. Four groups were assigned to have deep dentin as the dental substrate and the other four had abraded enamel as the substrate for the adhesives to be tested. The adhesives being tested were the total etching Single Bond: SB, the self-etching Clearfil SE bond: CSEB, self-etching One Up Bond F: OUBF and the self-etching Self-Etch Bond: SEB adhesives. The samples (teeth) were restored with composite resin and subjected to a traction assay. The results were statistically analyzed using the ANOVA and TUKEY tests. The total etching SB adhesive system had the greatest bonding strength of all the adhesives tested, on both dental substrates (20.1 MegaPascals (MPa) on abraded enamel and 19.4 MPa on deep dentin). Of the self-etching dental adhesives tested, CSEB had the greatest bonding strength on both substrates (14.6 MPa on abraded enamel and 15.4 MPa on deep dentin). Both OUBF (11.0 MPa for enamel, 13.1 MPa for dentin) and SEB (10.2 MPa for enamel, 12.6 MPa for dentin) showed comparable bonding strengths without any significant differences for either substrate Thus, the total etching SB adhesive system had better bonding strength than the other self-etching adhesives used, regardless of the dental substrate to which the adhesives had been bonded.