Flowable composites as intermediate agents without adhesive application in resin composite repair
No Thumbnail
Authors
Papacchini, FedericaRadović, Ivana
Magni, Elisa
Goracci, Cecilia

Monticelli, Francesca

Chieffi, Nicoletta
Polimeni, Antonella
Ferrari, Marco

Article (Published version)

Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
Purpose: To evaluate the effect of different intermediate resin agents on composite-to-composite microtensile bond strength (mu TBS). Methods: Composite disks (8 x 4 mm) of Gradia Direct Anterior (N= 15) and Filtek Supreme XT (N=15), stored in a saline solution at 37 degrees C for I month, were sandblasted (Microetcher, 50 mu m-Al2O3), cleaned (35% H3PO4), and randomly divided into five groups (N=3) according to the intermediate agent applied. Two flowable composites (Gradia LoFlo; Filtek Supreme XT Flow) and two adhesives (Adper Scotchbond 1XT, Scotchbond Multi-Purpose) were used. As a control, no intermediate agent was applied., Each disk was incrementally repaired (W mm) with the same resin as the respective substrate. By serially cutting each repaired specimen, multiple sticks of about 0.8 mm(2) in cross-section were obtained and loaded in tension until failure at a cross-head speed of 0.5 mm/minute. Data were statistically analyzed. Failure mode was examined by stereo- and scannin...g electron-microscopy (SEM). Additional specimens were prepared to morphologically evaluate the composite-to-composite interfacial quality by SEM analysis. Results: Composite substrate and intermediate agent were significant factors (Two-way ANOVA, P lt 0.001). Bond strengths achieved with Gradia Direct Anterior were higher than Hick Supreme XT. The application of flowable composites resulted in statistically superior mu TBS than adhesives and control (Tukey test, P lt 0.001). Failure mode was predominantly cohesive (flowable composites), cohesive/adhesive (adhesives) and adhesive (no treatment). Flowable composites and adhesives showed a good interfacial quality.
Source:
American Journal of Dentistry, 2008, 21, 1, 53-58Publisher:
- Mosher and Linder, Inc
Collections
Institution/Community
Stomatološki fakultetTY - JOUR AU - Papacchini, Federica AU - Radović, Ivana AU - Magni, Elisa AU - Goracci, Cecilia AU - Monticelli, Francesca AU - Chieffi, Nicoletta AU - Polimeni, Antonella AU - Ferrari, Marco PY - 2008 UR - https://smile.stomf.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/1396 AB - Purpose: To evaluate the effect of different intermediate resin agents on composite-to-composite microtensile bond strength (mu TBS). Methods: Composite disks (8 x 4 mm) of Gradia Direct Anterior (N= 15) and Filtek Supreme XT (N=15), stored in a saline solution at 37 degrees C for I month, were sandblasted (Microetcher, 50 mu m-Al2O3), cleaned (35% H3PO4), and randomly divided into five groups (N=3) according to the intermediate agent applied. Two flowable composites (Gradia LoFlo; Filtek Supreme XT Flow) and two adhesives (Adper Scotchbond 1XT, Scotchbond Multi-Purpose) were used. As a control, no intermediate agent was applied., Each disk was incrementally repaired (W mm) with the same resin as the respective substrate. By serially cutting each repaired specimen, multiple sticks of about 0.8 mm(2) in cross-section were obtained and loaded in tension until failure at a cross-head speed of 0.5 mm/minute. Data were statistically analyzed. Failure mode was examined by stereo- and scanning electron-microscopy (SEM). Additional specimens were prepared to morphologically evaluate the composite-to-composite interfacial quality by SEM analysis. Results: Composite substrate and intermediate agent were significant factors (Two-way ANOVA, P lt 0.001). Bond strengths achieved with Gradia Direct Anterior were higher than Hick Supreme XT. The application of flowable composites resulted in statistically superior mu TBS than adhesives and control (Tukey test, P lt 0.001). Failure mode was predominantly cohesive (flowable composites), cohesive/adhesive (adhesives) and adhesive (no treatment). Flowable composites and adhesives showed a good interfacial quality. PB - Mosher and Linder, Inc T2 - American Journal of Dentistry T1 - Flowable composites as intermediate agents without adhesive application in resin composite repair VL - 21 IS - 1 SP - 53 EP - 58 UR - https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_smile_1396 ER -
@article{ author = "Papacchini, Federica and Radović, Ivana and Magni, Elisa and Goracci, Cecilia and Monticelli, Francesca and Chieffi, Nicoletta and Polimeni, Antonella and Ferrari, Marco", year = "2008", abstract = "Purpose: To evaluate the effect of different intermediate resin agents on composite-to-composite microtensile bond strength (mu TBS). Methods: Composite disks (8 x 4 mm) of Gradia Direct Anterior (N= 15) and Filtek Supreme XT (N=15), stored in a saline solution at 37 degrees C for I month, were sandblasted (Microetcher, 50 mu m-Al2O3), cleaned (35% H3PO4), and randomly divided into five groups (N=3) according to the intermediate agent applied. Two flowable composites (Gradia LoFlo; Filtek Supreme XT Flow) and two adhesives (Adper Scotchbond 1XT, Scotchbond Multi-Purpose) were used. As a control, no intermediate agent was applied., Each disk was incrementally repaired (W mm) with the same resin as the respective substrate. By serially cutting each repaired specimen, multiple sticks of about 0.8 mm(2) in cross-section were obtained and loaded in tension until failure at a cross-head speed of 0.5 mm/minute. Data were statistically analyzed. Failure mode was examined by stereo- and scanning electron-microscopy (SEM). Additional specimens were prepared to morphologically evaluate the composite-to-composite interfacial quality by SEM analysis. Results: Composite substrate and intermediate agent were significant factors (Two-way ANOVA, P lt 0.001). Bond strengths achieved with Gradia Direct Anterior were higher than Hick Supreme XT. The application of flowable composites resulted in statistically superior mu TBS than adhesives and control (Tukey test, P lt 0.001). Failure mode was predominantly cohesive (flowable composites), cohesive/adhesive (adhesives) and adhesive (no treatment). Flowable composites and adhesives showed a good interfacial quality.", publisher = "Mosher and Linder, Inc", journal = "American Journal of Dentistry", title = "Flowable composites as intermediate agents without adhesive application in resin composite repair", volume = "21", number = "1", pages = "53-58", url = "https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_smile_1396" }
Papacchini, F., Radović, I., Magni, E., Goracci, C., Monticelli, F., Chieffi, N., Polimeni, A.,& Ferrari, M.. (2008). Flowable composites as intermediate agents without adhesive application in resin composite repair. in American Journal of Dentistry Mosher and Linder, Inc., 21(1), 53-58. https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_smile_1396
Papacchini F, Radović I, Magni E, Goracci C, Monticelli F, Chieffi N, Polimeni A, Ferrari M. Flowable composites as intermediate agents without adhesive application in resin composite repair. in American Journal of Dentistry. 2008;21(1):53-58. https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_smile_1396 .
Papacchini, Federica, Radović, Ivana, Magni, Elisa, Goracci, Cecilia, Monticelli, Francesca, Chieffi, Nicoletta, Polimeni, Antonella, Ferrari, Marco, "Flowable composites as intermediate agents without adhesive application in resin composite repair" in American Journal of Dentistry, 21, no. 1 (2008):53-58, https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_smile_1396 .