The Effect of Various Surface Treatment Adhesives and Composite Materials on Repair Strength of Composite Resin

Aimsof the study:The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of a flowable composite and total etch adhesive on shear bond strength of repaired composite with a different types of tooth colored res-torations (microhybrid, nanohybrid, and ormocer). Materials and Methods Ninety Teflon mold (4 mm ×...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Nadia H Hasan
Format: Article
Language:Arabic
Published: University of Mosul, College of Dentistry 2012-01-01
Series:Al-Rafidain Dental Journal
Subjects:
Online Access:https://rden.mosuljournals.com/pdf_42653_cc1221a762c37e2b941126f79ba581a9.html
id doaj-50962297ea52433da5ad08623509d81c
record_format Article
spelling doaj-50962297ea52433da5ad08623509d81c2020-11-25T02:24:28ZaraUniversity of Mosul, College of DentistryAl-Rafidain Dental Journal 1812-12171998-03452012-01-0112112613410.33899/rden.2012.42653The Effect of Various Surface Treatment Adhesives and Composite Materials on Repair Strength of Composite ResinNadia H HasanAimsof the study:The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of a flowable composite and total etch adhesive on shear bond strength of repaired composite with a different types of tooth colored res-torations (microhybrid, nanohybrid, and ormocer). Materials and Methods Ninety Teflon mold (4 mm ×2mm), of Tetric® Ceram prepared then divided into two main groups 1st control ( without etch-ing ), 2 ed etched with 37 phosphoric acid. Both groups were divided into three subgroups according to a type of adhesiveapplied, 1st control, 2 ed the Excite® and in 3ed the tgflow appliedThe second split of Teflon mold (4mm×1mm)placed onto the prepared specimenEach subgroup (1st control, 2 ed the Excite® and in 3rd the tgflow) were farther divided into three subgroups which entrain filled as fallow: 1st split filled with a Tetric® Ceram, in 2 ed split filled with Tetric NCeram, and in 3 rd. split filled with Admira. Shear bond strength was measured by using Universal Testing Machine, and mode of failure examined by a stereomicroscope. Results: No significant difference in the surface treatment groups. For the adhesive, Tgflow showed superior shear value (3248 MPa) comparing to other adhe-sives while for the composite materials, The Tetric NCeram composite showed superior value of shear strength (2821MPa) comparing to other materialsConclusions: Phosphoric acid has no effect on shear value of repaired composite while Tgflow and Tetric NCeram give an improvement in its shear valueAll composites exhibited cohesive and adhesive type of failure. https://rden.mosuljournals.com/pdf_42653_cc1221a762c37e2b941126f79ba581a9.htmlsignificant caries indexdmftdmfs.
collection DOAJ
language Arabic
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Nadia H Hasan
spellingShingle Nadia H Hasan
The Effect of Various Surface Treatment Adhesives and Composite Materials on Repair Strength of Composite Resin
Al-Rafidain Dental Journal
significant caries index
dmft
dmfs.
author_facet Nadia H Hasan
author_sort Nadia H Hasan
title The Effect of Various Surface Treatment Adhesives and Composite Materials on Repair Strength of Composite Resin
title_short The Effect of Various Surface Treatment Adhesives and Composite Materials on Repair Strength of Composite Resin
title_full The Effect of Various Surface Treatment Adhesives and Composite Materials on Repair Strength of Composite Resin
title_fullStr The Effect of Various Surface Treatment Adhesives and Composite Materials on Repair Strength of Composite Resin
title_full_unstemmed The Effect of Various Surface Treatment Adhesives and Composite Materials on Repair Strength of Composite Resin
title_sort effect of various surface treatment adhesives and composite materials on repair strength of composite resin
publisher University of Mosul, College of Dentistry
series Al-Rafidain Dental Journal
issn 1812-1217
1998-0345
publishDate 2012-01-01
description Aimsof the study:The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of a flowable composite and total etch adhesive on shear bond strength of repaired composite with a different types of tooth colored res-torations (microhybrid, nanohybrid, and ormocer). Materials and Methods Ninety Teflon mold (4 mm ×2mm), of Tetric® Ceram prepared then divided into two main groups 1st control ( without etch-ing ), 2 ed etched with 37 phosphoric acid. Both groups were divided into three subgroups according to a type of adhesiveapplied, 1st control, 2 ed the Excite® and in 3ed the tgflow appliedThe second split of Teflon mold (4mm×1mm)placed onto the prepared specimenEach subgroup (1st control, 2 ed the Excite® and in 3rd the tgflow) were farther divided into three subgroups which entrain filled as fallow: 1st split filled with a Tetric® Ceram, in 2 ed split filled with Tetric NCeram, and in 3 rd. split filled with Admira. Shear bond strength was measured by using Universal Testing Machine, and mode of failure examined by a stereomicroscope. Results: No significant difference in the surface treatment groups. For the adhesive, Tgflow showed superior shear value (3248 MPa) comparing to other adhe-sives while for the composite materials, The Tetric NCeram composite showed superior value of shear strength (2821MPa) comparing to other materialsConclusions: Phosphoric acid has no effect on shear value of repaired composite while Tgflow and Tetric NCeram give an improvement in its shear valueAll composites exhibited cohesive and adhesive type of failure.
topic significant caries index
dmft
dmfs.
url https://rden.mosuljournals.com/pdf_42653_cc1221a762c37e2b941126f79ba581a9.html
work_keys_str_mv AT nadiahhasan theeffectofvarioussurfacetreatmentadhesivesandcompositematerialsonrepairstrengthofcompositeresin
AT nadiahhasan effectofvarioussurfacetreatmentadhesivesandcompositematerialsonrepairstrengthofcompositeresin
_version_ 1724855739912028160