Abstract
AIM: The main objective of this study was to assess the micro-tensile bond strength (µTBS) of a free bisphenol-a-diglycidyl-ether-dimethacrylate (Bis-GMA) resin composite restorative material compared to a Bis-GMA-containing resin composite following the application of a hydrophobic coating (heliobond).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A flat occlusal dentin surface was exposed in a total of eighty extracted teeth that were removed for periodontal reasons. Teeth were divided into two main equal groups according to the type of applied filling materials: BIS-GMA-free versus BIS-GMA-containing resin composite (n = 40). Each main group was subdivided into two equal subgroups (n = 20) according to the application of Heliobond (hydrophobic resin coating). Heliobond has been applied after adhesive application and before resin composite application. The first group was restored by a Free Bis-GMA Resin Composite (Admira, Voco, Germany); the second group was restored by a Bis- GMA-containing resin composite (Grandio, Voco, Germany). Each tested restorative material was applied and cured according to the manufacturer’s instructions.
RESULTS: Regardless of different composite and adhesive types, there was a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) among all subgroups. Specimens with Heliobond recorded a higher µTBS mean value (30.46 ± 6.7 megapaskal [MPa]) than groups without Heliobond, which recorded µTBS mean value (23.95 ± 9.02 MPa).
CONCLUSION: Application of an extra hydrophobic layer coating (Heliobond) has improved the performance of the µTBS of the adhesive systems utilized with the new BIS-GMA-free versus BIS-GMA-containing composite resin
Publisher
Scientific Foundation SPIROSKI
Reference48 articles.
1. Sano H, Shono T, Sonoda H, Takatsu T, Ciucchi B. Relationship between surface area for adhesion and tensile bond strength--evaluation of micro-tensile bond test. Dent Mater. 1994;10(4):236-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/0109-5641(94)90067-1 PMid:7664990
2. Hamoudaa IM, Shehatab SH. Fracture resistance of posterior teeth restored with modern restorative materials. J Biomed Res. 2011;25(6):418-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1674-8301(11)60055-9 PMid:23554719
3. Fu J, Liu W, Hao Z, Wu X, Yin J, Panjiyar A, et al. Characterization of a low shrinkage dental composite containing bismethylene spiroorthocarbonate expanding monomer. Int J Mole Sci. 2014;15(2):2400-12. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms15022400 PMid:24518683
4. Mousavinasab SM, Ghasemi M, Yadollahi M. Evaluation of enamel and dentinal microleakage in Class II silorane-based and methacrylate-based resin composite restorations using specific and nonspecific adhesives. J Dent (Tehran). 2018;15(4):240-9. PMid:30405733
5. Rajeev V, Arunachalam R, Nayar S, Arunima PR, Ganapathy S. “Ormocer an innovative technology”: A replacement for conventional cements and veneer? A comparative in vitro analysis. Eur J Dent. 2017;11(1):58-63. https://doi.org/10.4103/ejd.ejd_113_16 PMid:28435367