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

Search MEDLINE/PubMed


  • Title: Microtensile bond strengths to cavity floor dentin in indirect composite restorations using resin coating.
    Author: Okuda M, Nikaido T, Maruoka R, Foxton RM, Tagami J.
    Journal: J Esthet Restor Dent; 2007; 19(1):38-46; discussion 47-8. PubMed ID: 17244149.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: The aims of this study were (1) to evaluate the effect of a resin coating on the microtensile bond strengths (mu-TBSs) of indirect composite restorations bonded to dentin with resin cement and (2) to compare the mu-TBSs with that of a directly placed composite. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Class I cavities were prepared in extracted human molars. The specimens were divided into five groups: For the indirect restorations, the cavity surfaces of the control group were left uncoated (group 1), while the surfaces of the experimental groups were resin coated with a dentin bonding system, Clearfil Protect Bond (PB; groups 2 and 3), or with a combination of PB and a flowable resin composite, Protect Liner F (PLF; group 4). The cavities were temporized for 1 day. Indirect composite restorations (Estenia) were cemented with a resin cement (Panavia F). Pretreatment with ED Primer II was performed in the groups 1, 3, and 4. For the direct restorations, the cavities were restored with PB and a direct composite (Clearfil AP-X; group 5). After 24 hours of water storage, mu-TBSs were measured at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The data were analyzed with one-way analysis of variance and Sheffe's test (p < 0.05). In addition, fracture modes were determined visually and by scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS: A combination of PB and PLF showed significantly higher bond strengths compared with the original bond strength of Panavia F and the single use of PB (p < 0.05). However, the highest bond strengths were obtained when PB was used for direct composite restorations (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The application of a resin coating consisting of a self-etching primer dentin bonding system and a flowable resin composite significantly improved the mu-TBS of indirect restorations bonded to dentin using resin cement. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: A resin coating should be required to improve dentin bonding performance of Panavia F in indirect restorations. However, direct composite restorations still provide higher bond strength compared to indirect restorations.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]