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: Effects of different surface conditioning methods on the bond strength of composite resin to amalgam.
    Author: Ozcan M, Koolman C, Aladag A, Dündar M.
    Journal: Oper Dent; 2011; 36(3):318-25. PubMed ID: 21740243.
    Abstract:
    Repairing amalgam restorations with composite resins using surface conditioning methods is a conservative treatment approach. This study investigated the effects of different conditioning methods that could be used for repair of amalgam fractures. Amalgam (N=96) was condensed into cavities within autopolymerizing polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), and the exposed surface of each specimen (diameter, 6 mm; thickness, 2 mm) was ground finished. The specimens were randomly divided into nine experimental groups (n=12 per group), depending on the conditioning method used. The control group had natural central incisors with amalgam (n=12). The combination of the following conditioning methods was tested: silicacoating (Sc), sandblasting (Sb), metal primers, coupling agents, fiber (Fb) application, and opaquers (O). Five types of silanes, metal primers, or adhesives (Visiobond [V], Porcelain Photobond [PP], Alloy Primer [AP], Unibond sealer [Us], ESPE-Sil [ES]), and four opaquers, namely, Clearfil St Opaquer (CstO), Sinfony (S), Miris (M), and an experimental Opaquer (EO-Cavex), were used. The groups were as follows: group 1, Sc+ES+S+V; group 2, Sc+ES+CstO+V; group 3, Sc+ES+M+V; group 4, Sc+ES+EO+V; group 5, Sb+AP+S; group 6, Sb+AP+PP+CstO; group 7, Sc+ES+S+Fb+V+Fb; group 8-control, SC+ES+V; and group 9, Etch+Sc+ES+S+Us. One repair composite was used for all groups (Clearfil Photo Bond Posterior, Kuraray, Tokyo, Japan). Shear bond strengths (SBSs) (MPa ± SD) were evaluated after 5 weeks of water storage (analysis of variance [ANOVA], Tukey honestly significant differences [HSD], α=0.05). Group 1 exhibited significantly higher values (35.5 ± 4.1) than were seen in group 4 (19.4 ± 8.9), group 6 (19.1 ± 7.8), and group 8 (20.1 ± 4.1) (p<0.05). Group 9 exhibited significantly lower values (8.3 ± 3.4) than were noted in groups 1 to 3 (35.5 ± 4.1; 27 ± 12.5; 24.4 ± 5.1, respectively) (p<0.05). Group 7 (16.4 ± 5.9) showed significantly lower values than were observed in group 1 (35.5 ± 4.1) (p<0.05). Surface conditioning techniques affected the bond strengths of composite adhesion to amalgam. Experimental opaquer exhibited lower values. Leaving a small border of enamel around the restoration decreased the bond strength.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]