Садржај

Contemporary Materials II−1 (2011)

Contemporary Materials II−1 (2011) Page 62 of 68

UDK 616.314.5:615.242‒07

BOND STRENGTH COMPARISON OF THREE CORE BUILD-UP MATERIALS USED TO RESTORE MAXILLARY INCISOR TEETH

D. Marković1,*, B. Petronijević1, L. Blažić1, I. Šarčev1, T. Atanacković2

1 University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Medicine, Clinic of Dentistry, Novi Sad, Hajduk Veljkova 3, Serbia 
2 University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Technical Sciences, Institute of Mechanics, Novi Sad, Hajduk Veljkova 3, Serbia

Abstract
 The aims of this study we­re to exa­mi­ne the ul­ti­ma­te strength of the re­sto­red ma­xil­lary in­ci­sors with com­po­si­te re­sin, den­tal amal­gam and glas­si­o­no­mer ce­ment as a tran­si­ti­o­nal re­sto­ra­tion. Fifty-six ex­trac­ted hu­man ma­xil­lary cen­tral in­ci­sors with in­tact and ca­ri­o­us den­tin we­re used. The con­trol gro­up con­si­sted of eight un­re­sto­red te­eth with in­tact den­tin. Ar­ti­fi­cial de­fect in den­tin was up to the half of the ana­to­mic crown of the to­oth. Af­ter co­re bu­ild-up pro­ce­du­re, each ro­ot of every spe­ci­men was mo­un­ted in auto­polyme­ri­zing acrylic re­sin blocks which we­re sto­red in dis­til­led wa­ter at 37°C one day be­fo­re te­sting. Then it was pla­ced in a spe­ci­ally adap­ted jig at an an­gle of 130 de­gre­es to la­bio-pa­la­tal axis and su­bjec­ted to a con­trol­led load that was re­cor­ded in a uni­ver­sal te­sting mac­hi­ne at a crosshead speed of 1 mm per mi­nu­te un­til fa­i­lu­re oc­cur­red. The­re we­re no sig­ni­fi­cant dif­fe­ren­ces among con­trol gro­up and re­sto­red te­eth with com­po­si­te re­sin and den­tal amal­gam with in­tact den­tin (p<0.05). In the gro­up with ca­ri­o­us-af­fec­ted den­tin, the­re we­re no dif­fe­ren­ces among re­sto­ra­ti­ve ma­te­ri­als and the va­lu­es we­re sta­ti­sti­cally sig­ni­fi­cantly lo­wer in com­pa­ri­son to the con­trol gro­up. Ba­sed on the da­te ob­ta­i­ned, we con­clu­ded that the hig­hest ove­rall strength of re­sto­red in­ci­sors with in­tact den­tin, when 50 per cent of the co­ro­nal part of the to­oth is mis­sing, was ac­hi­e­ved by using com­po­si­te re­sin and den­tal amal­gam as a tran­si­ti­o­nal re­sto­ra­tion and as a co­re bu­ild-up ma­te­rial. The ca­ri­es-af­fec­ted den­tin led to lo­wer bond strength of re­sto­red te­eth. Al­so it has been con­clu­ded that com­po­si­te re­sin has the best bond and ten­si­o­nal strength ra­tio.

Keywords: bond strength, composite resin, core build-up, dental amalgam, glass ionomer cements, transitional restoration.

Full Text (PDF)

References

[1] E. C. Com­be, A. M. S. Sha­glo­uf, D. C. Watts, N. H. F. Wil­son. Mec­ha­ni­cal pro­per­ti­es of di­rect co­re bu­ild-up ma­te­ri­als. Den­tal Ma­te­ri­als, 15 (1999) 158‒165.
[2] G. J. Schil­ling­burg, S. Ho­bo, L. D Whit­sett, Ja­co­bi R, Brac­kett SE. Fun­da­men­tals of fi­xed prost­ho­don­tics. Chic­ha­go 1997, 185.
[3] R. W. Was­sell, E. R. Smart, Co­res for te­eth with vi­tal pulps. Bri­tish Den­tal Jo­ur­nal, 192 (2002) 499‒502, 505‒509.
[4] P. H. R. Wil­son, N. L. Fis­her, D. W. Bar­tlett, Di­rect Co­res for Vi­tal Te­eth – Ma­te­ri­als and Met­hods Used to Re­tain Co­res in Vi­tal Te­eth, Euro­pean Jo­ur­nal of Prost­ho­don­tics and Re­sto­ra­ti­ve Den­ti­stry, 10 (2002) 157‒162.
[5] J. I. M. Ti­ra­do, W. W. Nagy, V. B. Dhu­ru, A. J. Zi­e­bert, The ef­fect of ther­mocycling on the frac­tu­re to­ug­hness and hard­ness of co­re bu­il­dup ma­te­rial. Jo­ur­nal of Prost­he­tic Den­ti­stry, 86 (2001) 474‒480.
[6] G. C. Cho, L. M. Ka­ne­ko, T. E. Do­no­van, S. N.Whi­te, Di­a­me­tral and com­pres­si­ve strength of den­tal co­re ma­te­ri­als. Jo­ur­nal of Prost­he­tic Den­ti­stry, 82 (1999) 272‒276.
[7] B. I. Co­hen, M. K. Pag­nil­lo, A. S. De­utsch, B. L. Mu­si­kant, Frac­tu­re strengths of three co­re re­sto­ra­ti­ve ma­te­ri­als sup­por­ted with or wit­ho­ut a pre­fa­bri­ca­ted split-shank post. Jo­ur­nal of Prost­he­tic Den­ti­stry, 78 (1997) 560‒565.
[8] S. Le­var­tovsky, G. R Gold­stein, M.Ge­or­ge­scu, She­ar bond strength of se­ve­ral new co­re ma­te­ri­als. Jo­ur­nal of Prost­he­tic Den­ti­stry, 75 (1996) 154‒158.
[9] T. Sto­ber, P. Ram­mels­berg, The fa­i­lu­re ra­te of ad­he­si­vely re­ta­i­ned com­po­si­te co­re bu­ild-ups in com­pa­ri­son with me­tal-ad­ded glass iono­mer co­re bu­ild-ups. Jo­ur­nal of Den­ti­stry, 33 (2005) 27‒32.
[10] F. J. T. Bur­ke, A. G. Sha­glo­uf, E. C. Com­be, N. H. F. Wil­son, Frac­tu­re re­si­stan­ce of fi­ve pin-re­ta­i­ned co­re bu­ild-up ma­te­ri­als on te­eth with and wit­ho­ut ex­tra­co­ro­nal pre­pa­ra­tion, Ope­ra­ti­ve Den­ti­stry, 25 (2000) 388‒394.
[11] P. Ga­te­au, M. Sa­bek, B. Da­i­ley, In vi­tro fa­ti­gue re­si­stan­ce of glass iono­mer ce­ments used in post-and-co­re ap­pli­ca­ti­ons. Jo­ur­nal of Prost­he­tic Den­ti­stry, 86 (2001) 149‒155.
[12] P. N. Ma­son, M. Fer­ra­ri, In vi­vo eva­lu­a­tion of glass-iono­mer ce­ment ad­he­sion to den­tin. Qu­in­tes­sen­ce In­ter­na­ti­o­nal, 25 (1994) 499‒504.
[13] M. P. Cun­ning­ham, J. C. Me­i­ers, The ef­fect of den­tin di­sin­fec­tants on she­ar bond strength of re­sin-mo­di­fied glass-iono­mer ma­te­ri­als. Qu­in­tes­sen­ce In­ter­na­ti­o­nal, 28 (1997) 545‒551.
[14] J. W. Mc Lean Den­ti­nal bon­ding agents ver­sus glass-iono­mer ce­ments. Qu­in­tes­sen­ce In­ter­na­ti­o­nal, 27 (1996) 659‒667.
[15] T. P. Croll, R.W. Phil­lips (1991) Six years, ex­pe­ri­en­ce with glass-iono­mer-sil­ver cer­met ce­ment. Qu­in­tes­sen­ce In­ter­na­ti­o­nal, 22 (1996) 783‒793.
[16] P. Jac­qu­es, J.He­bling, Ef­fect of den­tin con­di­ti­o­ners on the mic­ro­ten­si­le bond strength of a con­ven­ti­o­nal and a self-etching pri­mer ad­he­si­ve system. Den­tal Ma­te­ri­als, 21 (2005) 103‒109.
[17] K. Shi­rai, J. De Munck, Y. Yos­hi­da, et al., Ef­fect of ca­vity con­fi­gu­ra­tion and aging on the bon­ding ef­fec­ti­ve­ness of six ad­he­si­ves to den­tin. Den­tal Ma­te­ri­als, 21 (2005) 110‒124.
[18] J. De Munck, B. Van Me­er­be­ek, P. Lam­brechts, G. Van­her­le, Fo­ur-year wa­ter de­gra­da­tion of to­tal-etch ad­he­si­ves bon­ded to den­tin. Jo­ur­nal of  Den­tal Re­se­arch, 82 (2003) 136‒140.
[19] A. J. Gwin­net, S. Yu, Ef­fect of long-term wa­ter sto­ra­ge on den­tin bon­ding. Ame­ri­can Jo­ur­nal of  Den­ti­stry, 8 (1995)109‒111.
[20] M. Has­hi­mo­to, H. Oh­no, M. Ka­ga, K. En­do, H. Sa­no, H. Oguc­hi, In vi­vo de­gra­da­tion of re­sin-den­tin bonds in hu­mans over 1 to 3 years. Jo­ur­nal of  Den­tal Re­se­arch, 79 (2000) 1385‒1390.
[21] L. Ce­bal­los, D. G. Ca­me­jo, M. V. Fu­en­tes, et al. Mic­ro­ten­si­le bond strength of to­tal-etch and self-etch ad­he­si­ves to ca­ri­es-af­fec­ted den­ti­ne. Jo­ur­nal of Den­ti­stry, 31 (2003) 469‒477.
[22] Z. C. Çehreli, A. R. Yazi­ci, T. Ak­ca, G. Öz­günal­tay, A morp­ho­lo­gi­cal and mic­ro-ten­si­le bond strength eva­lu­a­tion of a sin­gle-bot­tle ad­he­si­ve to ca­ri­es-af­fec­ted hu­man den­ti­ne af­ter fo­ur dif­fe­rent ca­ri­es re­mo­val tec­hni­qu­es. Jo­ur­nal of Den­ti­stry, 31 (2003) 429‒435.
[23] M. Yos­hiyama, F. R. Tay, J. Doi, et al., Bon­ding of Self-etch and To­tal-etch Ad­he­si­ves to Ca­ri­o­us Den­tin. Jo­ur­nal of Den­tal Re­se­arch, 81 (2002) 556‒560.
[24] V. Sat­ta­ba­na­suk, M. F. Bur­row, Y. Shi­ma­da, J. Ta­ga­mi, Re­sin ad­he­sion to ca­ri­es-af­fec­ted den­ti­ne af­ter dif­fe­rent re­mo­val met­hods. Austra­lian Den­tal Jo­ur­nal, 51 (2006) 162‒169.
[25] M. C. G. Er­hardt, M. To­le­da­no, R. Oso­rio, L. A. Pi­men­ta, Hi­sto­morp­ho­lo­gic cha­rac­te­ri­za­tion and bond strength eva­lu­a­tion of ca­ri­es-af­fec­ted den­tin /re­sin in­ter­fa­ces: Ef­fects of long-term wa­ter ex­po­su­re. Den­tal Ma­te­ri­als, 24 (2008) 786‒796.
[26] T. M. Ata­nac­ko­vic, A. Gu­ran, The­ory of Ela­sti­city for Sci­en­tists and En­gi­ne­ers, Birk­ho­u­se, Bo­ston 2000.
[27] R. E. Ko­va­rik, L. C. Bre­e­ding, W. F. Ca­ug­hman, Fa­ti­gue li­fe of three co­re ma­te­ri­als un­der si­mu­la­ted che­wing con­di­ti­ons. Jo­ur­nal of Prost­he­tic Den­­ti­stry, 68 (1992) 584.
[28] Y. Wang, P. Spen­cer, Hybri­di­za­tion ef­fi­ci­ency of the ad­he­si­ve/ den­tin in­ter­fa­ce with wet bon­ding. Jo­ur­nal of Den­tal Re­se­arch, 82 (2003) 141‒145.
[29] M. Sta­ni­nec, G. W. Mar­shall, J. F. Hil­ton, et al. Ul­ti­ma­te ten­si­le strength of den­tin: Evi­den­ce for a da­ma­ge mec­ha­nics ap­pro­ach to den­tin fa­i­lu­re. In­ter­na­ti­o­nal Jo­ur­nal of Bi­o­me­di­ci­ne and Ma­te­rial Re­se­arch, 63 (2002) 342‒345.
[30] S. E. Strawn, J. M. Whi­te, G. W. Mar­shall, L. Gee, H. E. Go­o­di­es, S. J. Mar­shall, Spec­tro­sco­pic chan­ges in hu­man den­ti­ne ex­po­sed to va­ri­o­us sto­ra­ge so­lu­ti­ons- short term. Jo­ur­nal of  Den­ti­stry, 24 (1996) 417‒423.