Repair strength in simulated restorations of methacrylate- or silorane-based composite resins

Rafael Leonardo Xediek Consani, Tatiane Marinho, Atais Bacchi, Ricardo Armini Caldas, Victor Pinheiro Feitosa, Carmem Pfeifer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

The study verified the bond strength in simulated dental restorations of siloraneor methacrylate-based composites repaired with methacrylate-based composite. Methacrylate- (P60) or silorane-based (P90) composites were used associated with adhesive (Adper Single Bond 2). Twenty-four hemi-hourglass-shaped samples were repaired with each composite (n=12). Samples were divided according to groups: G1= P60 + Adper Single Bond 2+ P60; G2= P60 + Adper Single Bond 2 + P60 + thermocycling; G3= P90 + Adper Single Bond 2 + P60; and G4= P90 + Adper Single Bond 2 + P60 + thermocycling. G1 and G3 were submitted to tensile test 24 h after repair procedure, and G2 and G4 after submitted to 5,000 thermocycles at 5 and 55 °C for 30 s in each bath. Tensile bond strength test was accomplished in an universal testing machine at crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Data (MPa) were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test (5%). Sample failure pattern (adhesive, cohesive in resin or mixed) was evaluated by stereomicroscope at 30× and images were obtained in SEM. Bond strength values of methacrylate-based composite samples repaired with methacrylate-based composite (G1 and G2) were greater than for silorane-based samples (G3 and G4). Thermocycling decreased the bond strength values for both composites. All groups showed predominance of adhesive failures and no cohesive failure in composite resin was observed. In conclusion, higher bond strength values were observed in methacrylate-based resin samples and greater percentage of adhesive failures in silorane-based resin samples, both composites repaired with methacrylate-based resin.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)463-467
Number of pages5
JournalBrazilian Dental Journal
Volume27
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2016

Fingerprint

Methacrylates
Silorane Resins
Adhesives
Composite Resins
Tensile Strength
silorane composite resin
Baths
Analysis of Variance
Tooth
Adper single bond 2

Keywords

  • Bond strength
  • Dental composite
  • Methacrylate
  • Repair
  • Silorane

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Repair strength in simulated restorations of methacrylate- or silorane-based composite resins. / Consani, Rafael Leonardo Xediek; Marinho, Tatiane; Bacchi, Atais; Caldas, Ricardo Armini; Feitosa, Victor Pinheiro; Pfeifer, Carmem.

In: Brazilian Dental Journal, Vol. 27, No. 4, 01.07.2016, p. 463-467.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Consani, Rafael Leonardo Xediek ; Marinho, Tatiane ; Bacchi, Atais ; Caldas, Ricardo Armini ; Feitosa, Victor Pinheiro ; Pfeifer, Carmem. / Repair strength in simulated restorations of methacrylate- or silorane-based composite resins. In: Brazilian Dental Journal. 2016 ; Vol. 27, No. 4. pp. 463-467.
@article{af63950650a44d0b91a7ad07ead577ba,
title = "Repair strength in simulated restorations of methacrylate- or silorane-based composite resins",
abstract = "The study verified the bond strength in simulated dental restorations of siloraneor methacrylate-based composites repaired with methacrylate-based composite. Methacrylate- (P60) or silorane-based (P90) composites were used associated with adhesive (Adper Single Bond 2). Twenty-four hemi-hourglass-shaped samples were repaired with each composite (n=12). Samples were divided according to groups: G1= P60 + Adper Single Bond 2+ P60; G2= P60 + Adper Single Bond 2 + P60 + thermocycling; G3= P90 + Adper Single Bond 2 + P60; and G4= P90 + Adper Single Bond 2 + P60 + thermocycling. G1 and G3 were submitted to tensile test 24 h after repair procedure, and G2 and G4 after submitted to 5,000 thermocycles at 5 and 55 °C for 30 s in each bath. Tensile bond strength test was accomplished in an universal testing machine at crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Data (MPa) were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test (5{\%}). Sample failure pattern (adhesive, cohesive in resin or mixed) was evaluated by stereomicroscope at 30× and images were obtained in SEM. Bond strength values of methacrylate-based composite samples repaired with methacrylate-based composite (G1 and G2) were greater than for silorane-based samples (G3 and G4). Thermocycling decreased the bond strength values for both composites. All groups showed predominance of adhesive failures and no cohesive failure in composite resin was observed. In conclusion, higher bond strength values were observed in methacrylate-based resin samples and greater percentage of adhesive failures in silorane-based resin samples, both composites repaired with methacrylate-based resin.",
keywords = "Bond strength, Dental composite, Methacrylate, Repair, Silorane",
author = "Consani, {Rafael Leonardo Xediek} and Tatiane Marinho and Atais Bacchi and Caldas, {Ricardo Armini} and Feitosa, {Victor Pinheiro} and Carmem Pfeifer",
year = "2016",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1590/0103-6440201600730",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "27",
pages = "463--467",
journal = "Brazilian Dental Journal",
issn = "0103-6440",
publisher = "Associacao Brasileira de Divulgacao Cientifica",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Repair strength in simulated restorations of methacrylate- or silorane-based composite resins

AU - Consani, Rafael Leonardo Xediek

AU - Marinho, Tatiane

AU - Bacchi, Atais

AU - Caldas, Ricardo Armini

AU - Feitosa, Victor Pinheiro

AU - Pfeifer, Carmem

PY - 2016/7/1

Y1 - 2016/7/1

N2 - The study verified the bond strength in simulated dental restorations of siloraneor methacrylate-based composites repaired with methacrylate-based composite. Methacrylate- (P60) or silorane-based (P90) composites were used associated with adhesive (Adper Single Bond 2). Twenty-four hemi-hourglass-shaped samples were repaired with each composite (n=12). Samples were divided according to groups: G1= P60 + Adper Single Bond 2+ P60; G2= P60 + Adper Single Bond 2 + P60 + thermocycling; G3= P90 + Adper Single Bond 2 + P60; and G4= P90 + Adper Single Bond 2 + P60 + thermocycling. G1 and G3 were submitted to tensile test 24 h after repair procedure, and G2 and G4 after submitted to 5,000 thermocycles at 5 and 55 °C for 30 s in each bath. Tensile bond strength test was accomplished in an universal testing machine at crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Data (MPa) were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test (5%). Sample failure pattern (adhesive, cohesive in resin or mixed) was evaluated by stereomicroscope at 30× and images were obtained in SEM. Bond strength values of methacrylate-based composite samples repaired with methacrylate-based composite (G1 and G2) were greater than for silorane-based samples (G3 and G4). Thermocycling decreased the bond strength values for both composites. All groups showed predominance of adhesive failures and no cohesive failure in composite resin was observed. In conclusion, higher bond strength values were observed in methacrylate-based resin samples and greater percentage of adhesive failures in silorane-based resin samples, both composites repaired with methacrylate-based resin.

AB - The study verified the bond strength in simulated dental restorations of siloraneor methacrylate-based composites repaired with methacrylate-based composite. Methacrylate- (P60) or silorane-based (P90) composites were used associated with adhesive (Adper Single Bond 2). Twenty-four hemi-hourglass-shaped samples were repaired with each composite (n=12). Samples were divided according to groups: G1= P60 + Adper Single Bond 2+ P60; G2= P60 + Adper Single Bond 2 + P60 + thermocycling; G3= P90 + Adper Single Bond 2 + P60; and G4= P90 + Adper Single Bond 2 + P60 + thermocycling. G1 and G3 were submitted to tensile test 24 h after repair procedure, and G2 and G4 after submitted to 5,000 thermocycles at 5 and 55 °C for 30 s in each bath. Tensile bond strength test was accomplished in an universal testing machine at crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Data (MPa) were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test (5%). Sample failure pattern (adhesive, cohesive in resin or mixed) was evaluated by stereomicroscope at 30× and images were obtained in SEM. Bond strength values of methacrylate-based composite samples repaired with methacrylate-based composite (G1 and G2) were greater than for silorane-based samples (G3 and G4). Thermocycling decreased the bond strength values for both composites. All groups showed predominance of adhesive failures and no cohesive failure in composite resin was observed. In conclusion, higher bond strength values were observed in methacrylate-based resin samples and greater percentage of adhesive failures in silorane-based resin samples, both composites repaired with methacrylate-based resin.

KW - Bond strength

KW - Dental composite

KW - Methacrylate

KW - Repair

KW - Silorane

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84988310652&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84988310652&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1590/0103-6440201600730

DO - 10.1590/0103-6440201600730

M3 - Article

C2 - 27652712

AN - SCOPUS:84988310652

VL - 27

SP - 463

EP - 467

JO - Brazilian Dental Journal

JF - Brazilian Dental Journal

SN - 0103-6440

IS - 4

ER -