What is the best protocol for bonding resin-modified glass ionomer cement to composite resin?
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2015 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , |
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 |