Research Article

Effect of thermal and mechanical load cycling on dentin bond strength of a self-etch resin luting cement

- , 28.07.2017
https://doi.org/10.15311/1441.330615

Abstract

Effect of thermal and mechanical load cycling on dentin bond strength of a self -etch resin luting cement

Background: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of cyclic thermal and mechanical loads on dentin bond strength of a self-etch resin luting cement under in vitro conditions.

Methods: Inlay cavities were prepared on 18 caries-free human mandibular third molars. Restorations were fabricated by using feldspathic porcelain (Vita VM9). Bonding was achieved by using a dual-cure, self-etch resin luting cement (Clearfil Esthetic Cement). Teeth were then randomly divided into 3 groups: Group I: Control group (no thermal or mechanical cycling). Group II: Thermal cycling (thermocycling for 5.000 cycles). Group III: Mechanical load cycling (1.200.000 cycles). Two I-shape sectioned longitudinal cuts were prepared from each tooth (n:12). Total of thirty-six specimens were subjected to tensile forces at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min, and the maximum load at fracture was recorded. Fracture sites were observed with a stereomicroscope (Olympus, SZ-PT) to identify the failure mode. One tooth from each group was prepared for SEM analysis and interfaces were observed under SEM (435 VP; Leo SEM Products).

Results: One-way ANOVA revealed that there were significant differences among the groups (p<0.05). Also, Tukey’s HSD analysis showed that the mean MTBS of Group III was significantly lower than other groups (p<0.05). The difference between Group I and Group II was not significant (p>0.05).

Conclusion: In this study the principal failure type was found to be interfacial (adhesive) for all groups. Additionally, mechanical loads were observed to be effective on bonding stability while temperature alterations were not significantly influential.

References

  • 1.Belli R, Geinzer E, Muschweck A, Petschelt A, Lohbauer U. Mechanical fatigue degradation of ceramics versus resin composites for dental restorations. Dent Mater 2014;30(4):424-32. 2.Abel MG. In-office inlays with today’s new materials. Dent Clin North Am 1998;42:657-64. 3.Gemalmaz D, Ozcan M, Yoruc¸ AB, Alkumru HN. Marginal adaptation of a sintered ceramic inlay system before and after cementation. J Oral Rehabil 1997;24:646-51. 4.Mitchem JC. The use and abuse of aesthetic materials in posterior teeth. Int Dent J 1988;8:119-25. 5.Qualtrough AJ, Wilson NH, Smith GA. Porcelain inlay: a historical view. Oper Dent 1990;15:61-70. 6.Van Meerbeek B, Perdigao J, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. The clinical performance of adhesives. J Dent 1998;26:1-20. 7.Ozturk N, Aykent F. Dentin bond strengths of two ceramic inlay systems after cementation with three different techniques and one bonding system. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;89(3):275-81. 8.Kramer N, Ebert J, Petschelt A, Frankenberger R. Ceramic inlays bonded with two adhesives after 4 years. Dent Mater 2006;22:13–21. 9.Kramer N, Frankenberger R. Clinical performance of bonded leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after eight years. Dent Mater 2005;21:262–71. 10.Sjogren G, Molin M, van Dijken JW. A 10-year prospective evaluation of CAD/CAM-manufactured (Cerec) ceramic inlays cemented with a chemically cured or dual-cured resin composite. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:241–6.

Termal ve mekanik yükleme siklusunun self–etch rezin yapıştırma simanının dentine bağlanma dayanımı üzerine etkisi

- , 28.07.2017
https://doi.org/10.15311/1441.330615

Abstract

Termal ve mekanik yükleme siklusunun self–etch rezin yapıştırma simanının dentine bağlanma dayanımı üzerine etkisi

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, termal ve mekanik yükleme döngülerinin, bir self – etch rezin yapıştırma simanının dentine bağlanma dayanımını in vitro şartlar altında değerlendirmektir.

Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çürüksüz, 18 adet mandibular üçüncü molar diş üzerinde inlay kaviteleri hazırlandı. Restorasyonlar, feldspatik porselen kullanılarak hazırlandı (Vita VM9). Dentine bağlantı bir dual- cure, self- etch rezin yapıştırma simanı (Clearfil Esthetic Cement) kullanılarak sağlandı. Sonrasında dişler rastgele üç gruba ayrıldı: Grup I: Kontrol Grubu (termal veya mekanik siklus yok). Grup II: Termal siklus (5.000 termal siklus). Grup III: Mekanik yükleme siklusu (1.200.000 siklus). Herbir dişten (n:12) uzun eksen doğrultusunda kesiler yapılarak ikişer adet I-şeklinde kesitler elde edildi ve toplamda otuz altı adet örneğe, 1 mm/dk hızla çekme kuvvetleri uygulanarak kırılma sırasındaki maksimum kuvvet ölçüldü. Kırık hattı, ayrılma tipini tanımlamak amacı ile stereomikroskop (Olympus, SZ-PT) ile incelendi. Her bir simantasyon grubundan bir diş SEM (435 VP; Leo SEM Products) analizleri yapılmak üzere hazırlanarak arayüzeyler SEM altında incelendi.

Bulgular: One-way ANOVA ile gruplar arasında anlamlı farklılıklar olduğu ortaya konuldu (p<0.05). Tukey’s HSD analizi, Grup III’te görülen ortalama MTBS değerinin Grup I ve Grup II’den anlamlı derecede düşük olduğunu ortaya koydu (p<0.05). Grup I ve Grup II arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark görülmemiştir (p>0.05).

Sonuç: Bu çalışmanın sonuçlarına bakılarak, tüm gruplar için gözlenen asıl ayrılma tipinin interfasiyal (adeziv) tip olduğu söylenebilir. Ayrıca, sıcaklık değişimleri önemli derece etkili değil iken, mekanik yüklemenin bağlanma stabilitesi üzerine etkili olduğu görülmektedir.


References

  • 1.Belli R, Geinzer E, Muschweck A, Petschelt A, Lohbauer U. Mechanical fatigue degradation of ceramics versus resin composites for dental restorations. Dent Mater 2014;30(4):424-32. 2.Abel MG. In-office inlays with today’s new materials. Dent Clin North Am 1998;42:657-64. 3.Gemalmaz D, Ozcan M, Yoruc¸ AB, Alkumru HN. Marginal adaptation of a sintered ceramic inlay system before and after cementation. J Oral Rehabil 1997;24:646-51. 4.Mitchem JC. The use and abuse of aesthetic materials in posterior teeth. Int Dent J 1988;8:119-25. 5.Qualtrough AJ, Wilson NH, Smith GA. Porcelain inlay: a historical view. Oper Dent 1990;15:61-70. 6.Van Meerbeek B, Perdigao J, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. The clinical performance of adhesives. J Dent 1998;26:1-20. 7.Ozturk N, Aykent F. Dentin bond strengths of two ceramic inlay systems after cementation with three different techniques and one bonding system. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;89(3):275-81. 8.Kramer N, Ebert J, Petschelt A, Frankenberger R. Ceramic inlays bonded with two adhesives after 4 years. Dent Mater 2006;22:13–21. 9.Kramer N, Frankenberger R. Clinical performance of bonded leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after eight years. Dent Mater 2005;21:262–71. 10.Sjogren G, Molin M, van Dijken JW. A 10-year prospective evaluation of CAD/CAM-manufactured (Cerec) ceramic inlays cemented with a chemically cured or dual-cured resin composite. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:241–6.
There are 1 citations in total.

Details

Subjects Dentistry
Authors

Özlem Kara This is me

Tuğrul Sarı This is me

Özgün Yusuf Özyılmaz This is me

Pelin İnan Kurugöl This is me

Haluk Barış Kara

Publication Date July 28, 2017
Submission Date July 24, 2017

Cite

Vancouver Kara Ö, Sarı T, Özyılmaz ÖY, İnan Kurugöl P, Kara HB. Termal ve mekanik yükleme siklusunun self–etch rezin yapıştırma simanının dentine bağlanma dayanımı üzerine etkisi. Selcuk Dent J.