Aims and Scope
Recent Articles
Shear Bond Strength and Optical Properties of Resin Composite - Layered Provisional Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA)
Juthatip Aksornmuang, Juckrapun Tiangtrong
Aims:
To compare the shear bond strength between resin composite and Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) with various bonding protocols and to evaluate the optical properties of resin composite - layered provisional Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA).
Materials and Methods:
Eighty cylindrical shape specimens were fabricated from self-polymerized provisional Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) and they were randomly divided into eight groups. Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) was mixed and bonded onto the specimens as a positive control group. Resin composite was bonded to MMA-wetted surface without bonding agent as a negative control group. All remaining groups were bonded to resin composite using different bonding agents (Scothbond Universal, Luxatemp glaze&bond, and HC Primer) with and without MMA wetting. Shear bond strength testing was performed using a universal testing machine. Various shades of 0.5 mm-thick resin composites were layered onto 1.5 mm-thick PMMA both light and dark shade, with the most effective bonding protocol. Color differences between resin composite and – layered provisional Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) were measured using Spectrophotometer.
Results:
Bonding resin composite onto Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) using luxatemp glaze, bond and HC Primer without methyl methacrylate wetting provided statistically significantly lower bond strength than those of the MMA-wetted Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) surface. The highest shear bond strength was achieved with the application of Scothbond Universal Adhesive regardless of MMA wetting. The colors of resin composite - layered provisional Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) were different from the original resin composite color with ΔE results greater than the acceptable threshold (>3.7).
Conclusion:
Resin composites were able to effectively bond to the MMA-wetted Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) surface with the application of a tested bonding agent. Layering Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) with 0.5 mm-thick resin composite could not modify the Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) shade to the original resin composite color.
April 19, 2021
Articles
- April 19, 2021
Awareness and Utilization of Bulk-Fill Composites among Dental Practitioners in Saudi Arabia
April 16, 2021The Association between Occlusal Features and Temporomandibular Disorders in Northern Jordan: A Cross-sectional Study
April 16, 2021Mechanisms Involved in Apice Closure of Pulpless Teeth – Literature Review
March 22, 2021The Saudi Infection Control Guidance for Re-opening Dental Services in Governmental and Private Sectors During Coronavirus Disease-2019 Pandemic
February 16, 2021Porosity Pattern of 3D Chitosan/Bioactive Glass Tissue Engineering Scaffolds Prepared for Bone Regeneration
February 16, 2021
Effect of Finishing and Polishing on The Surface Roughness of Bulk Fill Composites
Editor's Choice
Evaluation of Five Different Desensitizers: A Comparative Dentin Permeability and SEM Investigation In Vitro
Nasibe Aycan Yilmaz, Ertan Ertas, Hasan Orucoğlu
Background/Objective:
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and durability of five different dentin desensitizers (Gluma Desensitizer Powergel, Bifluorid 12, Gluma Self Etch Bond, D/Sense Crystal, Nupro Sensodyne Prophylaxis Paste with Novamin) on tubule occlusion and dentin permeability reduction in vitro.
Method:
The quantitative changes in permeability of 100 dentin discs were measured after desensitizer treatments and following post-treatments of 6% citric acid challenge for 1 min or immersion in artificial saliva for 24 hours under hydrostatic pressure generated by a computerised fluid filtration meter. Qualitative SEM analyses were also carried out.
Results:
Dentin permeability decreased after desensitizer application in all groups. Nevertheless, only the difference between ‘Gluma Self Etch Bond’ and ‘Nupro Sensodyne Prophylaxis Paste with Novamin’ groups was significantly different (p<0.05). Dentin permeability increased significantly after post-treatments (p<0.05). There was no statistically difference among the citric acid-subgroups (p>0.05). Of all the artificial saliva-subgroups, only the difference between ‘D/Sense Crystal’ and ‘Bifluorid 12’ was significantly different (p<0.05). In SEM analysis, morphological changes were detected on the dentin surface and within the tubules following desensitizer treatments and post-treatments.
Conclusion:
All the desensitizers significantly reduced dentin permeability by changing the morphology of the dentin surface and/or dentinal tubules. Following post-treatments, there was some reduction in the efficacy of the desensitizers which was represented by the reduction in permeability values. SEM analysis revealed some physical changes in the dentin structure which can partly give an explanation to the reduced efficacy of tested desensitizers.
January 31, 2017
Other Post
- January 31, 2017
Alveolar Bone Fracture: Pathognomonic Sign for Clinical Diagnosis
August 31, 2017
Molar Uprighting: A Considerable and Safe Decision to Avoid Prosthetic Treatment
October 24, 2017
Oral Leiomyoma in an Adult Male: A Case Report
June 30, 2017
Insight into Oral Biofilm: Primary, Secondary and Residual Caries and Phyto-Challenged Solutions
May 31, 2017
Maxillary Overdenture Retained with an Implant Support CAD-CAM Bar: A 4 Years Follow Up Case
March 31, 2017
A 5-week Non-Surgical Approach towards Denture Induced Hyperplasia
