Purpose: To assess the shear bond strength to unground human enamel (ESBS) and flexural strength (FS) of different reinforcing fibers used in combination with a flowable composite resin. Materials and Methods: For ESBS testing, 90 human molars were selected and randomly divided into 9 groups (n = 10) according to the reinforcing fiber to be tested: 1. RTD Quartz Splint additionally impregnated at chair-side with Quartz Splint Resin (RTD); 2. RTD Quartz Splint without additional impregnation; 3. Ribbond- THM (Ribbond) impregnated with OptiBond FL Adhesive; 4: Ribbond Triaxial (Ribbond) impregnated with OptiBond FL Adhesive; 5. Connect (Kerr) impregnated with OptiBond FL Adhesive; 6. Construct (Kerr) impregnated with OptiBond FL Adhesive; 7. everStick PERIO (Stick Tech); 8. everStick C&B (Stick Tech); 9. nonreinforced composite Premise flowable (Kerr). Cylinders of flowable composite reinforced with the fibers were bonded to the intact buccal surface of the teeth. After 24 h of storage, ...shear loading was performed until failure occurred. FS was assessed performing three- point bending test according to ISO Standard 4049/2000. ESBS and FS data were analyzed using one- way ANOVA, followed by Tukey's HSD test for post- hoc comparisons (p lt 0.05). Results: For each group, the ESBS and FS, respectively, in MPa were: 1. 17.07 +/- 4.52 and 472.69 +/- 30.49; 2. 14.98 +/- 3.92 and 441.77 +/- 61.43; 3. 18.59 +/- 5.67 and 186.89 +/- 43.89; 4. 16.74 +/- 6.27 and 314.41 +/- 148.52; 5. 14.38 +/- 4.14 and 223.80 +/- 77.35; 6. 16.00 +/- 5.55 and 287.62 +/- 85.91; 7. 16.42 +/- 3.67 and 285.35 +/- 39.68; 8. 23.24 +/- 5.81 and 370.46 +/- 29.26; 9. 12.58 +/- 4.76 and 87.75 +/- 22.87. For most fibers, no significant difference in ESBS was found compared to the control group, except for everStick C&B, which yielded higher ESBS. Nonreinforced composite exhibited the lowest FS, while all fibers positively affected the FS. Conclusions: Fiber reinforcement of flowable composite does not affect its ESBS. The flexural strength of FRCs is significantly influenced by fiber composition and pattern.
Keywords:
fiber-reinforced composite / bond strength / enamel / flexural strength
Source:
Journal of Adhesive Dentistry, 2013, 15, 2, 123-130
TY - JOUR
AU - Juloski, Jelena
AU - Beloica, Miloš
AU - Goracci, Cecilia
AU - Chieffi, Nicoletta
AU - Giovannetti, Agostino
AU - Vichi, Alessandro
AU - Vulićević, Zoran
AU - Ferrari, Marco
PY - 2013
UR - https://smile.stomf.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/1835
AB - Purpose: To assess the shear bond strength to unground human enamel (ESBS) and flexural strength (FS) of different reinforcing fibers used in combination with a flowable composite resin. Materials and Methods: For ESBS testing, 90 human molars were selected and randomly divided into 9 groups (n = 10) according to the reinforcing fiber to be tested: 1. RTD Quartz Splint additionally impregnated at chair-side with Quartz Splint Resin (RTD); 2. RTD Quartz Splint without additional impregnation; 3. Ribbond- THM (Ribbond) impregnated with OptiBond FL Adhesive; 4: Ribbond Triaxial (Ribbond) impregnated with OptiBond FL Adhesive; 5. Connect (Kerr) impregnated with OptiBond FL Adhesive; 6. Construct (Kerr) impregnated with OptiBond FL Adhesive; 7. everStick PERIO (Stick Tech); 8. everStick C&B (Stick Tech); 9. nonreinforced composite Premise flowable (Kerr). Cylinders of flowable composite reinforced with the fibers were bonded to the intact buccal surface of the teeth. After 24 h of storage, shear loading was performed until failure occurred. FS was assessed performing three- point bending test according to ISO Standard 4049/2000. ESBS and FS data were analyzed using one- way ANOVA, followed by Tukey's HSD test for post- hoc comparisons (p lt 0.05). Results: For each group, the ESBS and FS, respectively, in MPa were: 1. 17.07 +/- 4.52 and 472.69 +/- 30.49; 2. 14.98 +/- 3.92 and 441.77 +/- 61.43; 3. 18.59 +/- 5.67 and 186.89 +/- 43.89; 4. 16.74 +/- 6.27 and 314.41 +/- 148.52; 5. 14.38 +/- 4.14 and 223.80 +/- 77.35; 6. 16.00 +/- 5.55 and 287.62 +/- 85.91; 7. 16.42 +/- 3.67 and 285.35 +/- 39.68; 8. 23.24 +/- 5.81 and 370.46 +/- 29.26; 9. 12.58 +/- 4.76 and 87.75 +/- 22.87. For most fibers, no significant difference in ESBS was found compared to the control group, except for everStick C&B, which yielded higher ESBS. Nonreinforced composite exhibited the lowest FS, while all fibers positively affected the FS. Conclusions: Fiber reinforcement of flowable composite does not affect its ESBS. The flexural strength of FRCs is significantly influenced by fiber composition and pattern.
PB - Quintessence Publishing Co Inc, Hanover Park
T2 - Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
T1 - Shear Bond Strength to Enamel and Flexural Strength of Different Fiber-reinforced Composites
VL - 15
IS - 2
SP - 123
EP - 130
DO - 10.3290/j.jad.a28362
ER -
@article{
author = "Juloski, Jelena and Beloica, Miloš and Goracci, Cecilia and Chieffi, Nicoletta and Giovannetti, Agostino and Vichi, Alessandro and Vulićević, Zoran and Ferrari, Marco",
year = "2013",
abstract = "Purpose: To assess the shear bond strength to unground human enamel (ESBS) and flexural strength (FS) of different reinforcing fibers used in combination with a flowable composite resin. Materials and Methods: For ESBS testing, 90 human molars were selected and randomly divided into 9 groups (n = 10) according to the reinforcing fiber to be tested: 1. RTD Quartz Splint additionally impregnated at chair-side with Quartz Splint Resin (RTD); 2. RTD Quartz Splint without additional impregnation; 3. Ribbond- THM (Ribbond) impregnated with OptiBond FL Adhesive; 4: Ribbond Triaxial (Ribbond) impregnated with OptiBond FL Adhesive; 5. Connect (Kerr) impregnated with OptiBond FL Adhesive; 6. Construct (Kerr) impregnated with OptiBond FL Adhesive; 7. everStick PERIO (Stick Tech); 8. everStick C&B (Stick Tech); 9. nonreinforced composite Premise flowable (Kerr). Cylinders of flowable composite reinforced with the fibers were bonded to the intact buccal surface of the teeth. After 24 h of storage, shear loading was performed until failure occurred. FS was assessed performing three- point bending test according to ISO Standard 4049/2000. ESBS and FS data were analyzed using one- way ANOVA, followed by Tukey's HSD test for post- hoc comparisons (p lt 0.05). Results: For each group, the ESBS and FS, respectively, in MPa were: 1. 17.07 +/- 4.52 and 472.69 +/- 30.49; 2. 14.98 +/- 3.92 and 441.77 +/- 61.43; 3. 18.59 +/- 5.67 and 186.89 +/- 43.89; 4. 16.74 +/- 6.27 and 314.41 +/- 148.52; 5. 14.38 +/- 4.14 and 223.80 +/- 77.35; 6. 16.00 +/- 5.55 and 287.62 +/- 85.91; 7. 16.42 +/- 3.67 and 285.35 +/- 39.68; 8. 23.24 +/- 5.81 and 370.46 +/- 29.26; 9. 12.58 +/- 4.76 and 87.75 +/- 22.87. For most fibers, no significant difference in ESBS was found compared to the control group, except for everStick C&B, which yielded higher ESBS. Nonreinforced composite exhibited the lowest FS, while all fibers positively affected the FS. Conclusions: Fiber reinforcement of flowable composite does not affect its ESBS. The flexural strength of FRCs is significantly influenced by fiber composition and pattern.",
publisher = "Quintessence Publishing Co Inc, Hanover Park",
journal = "Journal of Adhesive Dentistry",
title = "Shear Bond Strength to Enamel and Flexural Strength of Different Fiber-reinforced Composites",
volume = "15",
number = "2",
pages = "123-130",
doi = "10.3290/j.jad.a28362"
}
Juloski, J., Beloica, M., Goracci, C., Chieffi, N., Giovannetti, A., Vichi, A., Vulićević, Z.,& Ferrari, M.. (2013). Shear Bond Strength to Enamel and Flexural Strength of Different Fiber-reinforced Composites. in Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
Quintessence Publishing Co Inc, Hanover Park., 15(2), 123-130.
https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a28362
Juloski J, Beloica M, Goracci C, Chieffi N, Giovannetti A, Vichi A, Vulićević Z, Ferrari M. Shear Bond Strength to Enamel and Flexural Strength of Different Fiber-reinforced Composites. in Journal of Adhesive Dentistry. 2013;15(2):123-130.
doi:10.3290/j.jad.a28362 .
Juloski, Jelena, Beloica, Miloš, Goracci, Cecilia, Chieffi, Nicoletta, Giovannetti, Agostino, Vichi, Alessandro, Vulićević, Zoran, Ferrari, Marco, "Shear Bond Strength to Enamel and Flexural Strength of Different Fiber-reinforced Composites" in Journal of Adhesive Dentistry, 15, no. 2 (2013):123-130,
https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a28362 . .
