What is the best protocol for bonding resin-modified glass ionomer cement to composite resin?

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Barcellos, Daphne Camara
Data de Publicação: 2015
Outros Autores: Petrucelli, Nicolas, Gonçalves, Sérgio Eduardo de Paiva, Palazon, Milena Traversa, Sobue, Bianca Mitsue Goulart, Pucci, César Rogério
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Brazilian Dental Science
Texto Completo: https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1077
Resumo: Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the bond strength of resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) to composite resin considering the use of conventional and self-etching adhesive systems. Material and Methods: 60 RMGIC blocks (Riva, SDI) measuring 4 x 4 x 4 mm. were constructed. On the blocks, the application of different protocols of adhesive systems (n = 10) was carried out: Group 1 (Control) - without application of adhesive agent; Group 2 - 37% phosphoric acid + conventional adhesive agent Single Bond 2; Group 3 - conventional adhesive agent Single Bond 2; Group 4 – conventional adhesive agent Scotch Bond Multi-Purpose; Group 5 - self-etching adhesive Clearfil SE Bond; Group 6: self-etching adhesive Optibond Allin-One. Next, resin composite blocks measuring 4 x 4 x 4 mm were constructed (Venus, Heraeus Kulzer). The specimens were cut to obtain sticks which were submitted to microtensile bond strength test in a universal testing machine. The data were submitted to ANOVA and Tukey test (5%). Results: ANOVA showed a value of p < 0.05, which indicated significant differences between the groups (in Mpa): Group 2 - 32.83; Group 5 - 31.2; Group 3 - 25,15b; Group 6 - 22.92; Group 4 - 22.15; Group 1 - 13.84. The analysis of fracture mode demonstrated that there was a predominance of adhesive and mixed fractures for all groups. Conclusion: The protocols of acid etching + conventional adhesive system Single Bond 2 (Group 2) or self-etching adhesive system Clearfil SE Bond (Group 5) increased the bond strength of RMGIC to the composite resin. The presence of an adhesive layer between the two materials tended to improve the bonding of RMGIC to composite resin.
id UNESP-20_3a5edb7d89657c0be30bcbcb3a651d8b
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/1077
network_acronym_str UNESP-20
network_name_str Brazilian Dental Science
repository_id_str
spelling What is the best protocol for bonding resin-modified glass ionomer cement to composite resin?Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the bond strength of resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) to composite resin considering the use of conventional and self-etching adhesive systems. Material and Methods: 60 RMGIC blocks (Riva, SDI) measuring 4 x 4 x 4 mm. were constructed. On the blocks, the application of different protocols of adhesive systems (n = 10) was carried out: Group 1 (Control) - without application of adhesive agent; Group 2 - 37% phosphoric acid + conventional adhesive agent Single Bond 2; Group 3 - conventional adhesive agent Single Bond 2; Group 4 – conventional adhesive agent Scotch Bond Multi-Purpose; Group 5 - self-etching adhesive Clearfil SE Bond; Group 6: self-etching adhesive Optibond Allin-One. Next, resin composite blocks measuring 4 x 4 x 4 mm were constructed (Venus, Heraeus Kulzer). The specimens were cut to obtain sticks which were submitted to microtensile bond strength test in a universal testing machine. The data were submitted to ANOVA and Tukey test (5%). Results: ANOVA showed a value of p < 0.05, which indicated significant differences between the groups (in Mpa): Group 2 - 32.83; Group 5 - 31.2; Group 3 - 25,15b; Group 6 - 22.92; Group 4 - 22.15; Group 1 - 13.84. The analysis of fracture mode demonstrated that there was a predominance of adhesive and mixed fractures for all groups. Conclusion: The protocols of acid etching + conventional adhesive system Single Bond 2 (Group 2) or self-etching adhesive system Clearfil SE Bond (Group 5) increased the bond strength of RMGIC to the composite resin. The presence of an adhesive layer between the two materials tended to improve the bonding of RMGIC to composite resin.Institute of Science and Technology of São José dos Campos2015-05-19info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/107710.14295/bds.2015.v18i2.1077Brazilian Dental Science; Vol. 18 No. 2 (2015): Apr. - Jun. / 2015 - Published May 2015; 103-108Brazilian Dental Science; v. 18 n. 2 (2015): Apr. - Jun. / 2015 - Published May 2015; 103-1082178-6011reponame:Brazilian Dental Scienceinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho (UNESP)instacron:UNESPenghttps://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1077/944Barcellos, Daphne CamaraPetrucelli, NicolasGonçalves, Sérgio Eduardo de PaivaPalazon, Milena TraversaSobue, Bianca Mitsue GoulartPucci, César Rogérioinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2020-01-28T12:27:41Zoai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/1077Revistahttp://bds.ict.unesp.br/PUBhttp://ojs.fosjc.unesp.br/index.php/index/oaisergio@fosjc.unesp.br||sergio@fosjc.unesp.br2178-60112178-6011opendoar:2022-11-08T16:29:59.782780Brazilian Dental Science - Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho (UNESP)true
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv What is the best protocol for bonding resin-modified glass ionomer cement to composite resin?
title What is the best protocol for bonding resin-modified glass ionomer cement to composite resin?
spellingShingle What is the best protocol for bonding resin-modified glass ionomer cement to composite resin?
Barcellos, Daphne Camara
title_short What is the best protocol for bonding resin-modified glass ionomer cement to composite resin?
title_full What is the best protocol for bonding resin-modified glass ionomer cement to composite resin?
title_fullStr What is the best protocol for bonding resin-modified glass ionomer cement to composite resin?
title_full_unstemmed What is the best protocol for bonding resin-modified glass ionomer cement to composite resin?
title_sort What is the best protocol for bonding resin-modified glass ionomer cement to composite resin?
author Barcellos, Daphne Camara
author_facet Barcellos, Daphne Camara
Petrucelli, Nicolas
Gonçalves, Sérgio Eduardo de Paiva
Palazon, Milena Traversa
Sobue, Bianca Mitsue Goulart
Pucci, César Rogério
author_role author
author2 Petrucelli, Nicolas
Gonçalves, Sérgio Eduardo de Paiva
Palazon, Milena Traversa
Sobue, Bianca Mitsue Goulart
Pucci, César Rogério
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Barcellos, Daphne Camara
Petrucelli, Nicolas
Gonçalves, Sérgio Eduardo de Paiva
Palazon, Milena Traversa
Sobue, Bianca Mitsue Goulart
Pucci, César Rogério
description Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the bond strength of resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) to composite resin considering the use of conventional and self-etching adhesive systems. Material and Methods: 60 RMGIC blocks (Riva, SDI) measuring 4 x 4 x 4 mm. were constructed. On the blocks, the application of different protocols of adhesive systems (n = 10) was carried out: Group 1 (Control) - without application of adhesive agent; Group 2 - 37% phosphoric acid + conventional adhesive agent Single Bond 2; Group 3 - conventional adhesive agent Single Bond 2; Group 4 – conventional adhesive agent Scotch Bond Multi-Purpose; Group 5 - self-etching adhesive Clearfil SE Bond; Group 6: self-etching adhesive Optibond Allin-One. Next, resin composite blocks measuring 4 x 4 x 4 mm were constructed (Venus, Heraeus Kulzer). The specimens were cut to obtain sticks which were submitted to microtensile bond strength test in a universal testing machine. The data were submitted to ANOVA and Tukey test (5%). Results: ANOVA showed a value of p < 0.05, which indicated significant differences between the groups (in Mpa): Group 2 - 32.83; Group 5 - 31.2; Group 3 - 25,15b; Group 6 - 22.92; Group 4 - 22.15; Group 1 - 13.84. The analysis of fracture mode demonstrated that there was a predominance of adhesive and mixed fractures for all groups. Conclusion: The protocols of acid etching + conventional adhesive system Single Bond 2 (Group 2) or self-etching adhesive system Clearfil SE Bond (Group 5) increased the bond strength of RMGIC to the composite resin. The presence of an adhesive layer between the two materials tended to improve the bonding of RMGIC to composite resin.
publishDate 2015
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2015-05-19
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1077
10.14295/bds.2015.v18i2.1077
url https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1077
identifier_str_mv 10.14295/bds.2015.v18i2.1077
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://ojs.ict.unesp.br/index.php/cob/article/view/1077/944
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Institute of Science and Technology of São José dos Campos
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Institute of Science and Technology of São José dos Campos
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Brazilian Dental Science; Vol. 18 No. 2 (2015): Apr. - Jun. / 2015 - Published May 2015; 103-108
Brazilian Dental Science; v. 18 n. 2 (2015): Apr. - Jun. / 2015 - Published May 2015; 103-108
2178-6011
reponame:Brazilian Dental Science
instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho (UNESP)
instacron:UNESP
instname_str Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho (UNESP)
instacron_str UNESP
institution UNESP
reponame_str Brazilian Dental Science
collection Brazilian Dental Science
repository.name.fl_str_mv Brazilian Dental Science - Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho (UNESP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv sergio@fosjc.unesp.br||sergio@fosjc.unesp.br
_version_ 1788346899284099072