These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Potential of restorative systems with simplified adhesives: quantitative analysis of wear and marginal adaptation in vitro.
    Author: Göhring TN, Schönenberger KA, Lutz F.
    Journal: Am J Dent; 2003 Aug; 16(4):275-82. PubMed ID: 14579884.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: This in vitro study evaluated: (1) marginal adaptation and (2) attritional wear of composite resin materials with simplified bonding systems. METHODS: 36 standardized Class II MOD cavities were prepared in human mandibulary first molars and divided randomly in six equal groups. Restorations were placed with combinations of resin composites and simplified bonding systems: A = Arabesk and Solobond, B = Z 100 and Scotchbond 1, C = Prodigy and OptiBond, D = FHC Merz light and Resulcin Aqua Prime/Monobond as well as E = Sculpt-It and Bond 1. F = Amelogen Universal in combination with the classical 3 part adhesive system Permaquick served as control for marginal adaptation. For wear rates, enamel versus human enamel served as control. All specimens were subjected to long-term thermomechanical stress in a computer-controlled masticator. Human enamel cusps served as antagonists. Marginal adaptation was evaluated by SEM quantitatively before and after stress. Attritional wear in occlusal contact areas was measured on specimens and antagonists with a surface analyzer. Results were tested for statistical significance with ANOVA. RESULTS: SEM marginal analysis exhibited variations from 45.1 +/- 19.9% (D) to 7.9 +/- 5.4% (E) continuous margin after thermomechanical loading in test groups. All groups achieved statistically significant lower scores (P < 0.05) for marginal adaptation than the control (F: 87.4 +/- 15.5%). Total attritional wear (specimen + antagonist) varied from 153.2 +/- 32.3 microm (D) to 272.3 +/- 132.7 microm (A). Wear of A and F was statistically significantly higher (P < 0.05) than enamel versus enamel (162.2 +/- 111.2 microm).
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]