Publications (3)4.8 Total impact
-
Article: Knoop Hardness and Effectiveness of Dual-Cured Luting Systems and Flowable Resin to Bond Leucite-Reinforced Ceramic to Enamel.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the Knoop microhardness and microshear bond strength (MSBS) of dual-cured luting systems and flowable resin bonded to leucite-reinforced ceramics and enamel. Materials and Methods: Eighty bovine incisors were randomly divided into four groups per test (microhardness and microshear; n = 10) according to the bonding procedure: Excite DSC/Variolink, Clearfil SE Bond/Panavia F, Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus/RelyX ARC, and Adper Single Bond 2/Filtek Z350 Flow. For the KHN measurement, the cement was applied on the enamel surface and light-cured through a ceramic disk (5 mm diameter × 1.2 mm thick). Five indentations were performed in each specimen and measured at HMV-2. For the microshear test, two cylinders of a leucite-reinforced ceramic (1 mm diameter × 2 mm height) were bonded to the enamel substrate in accordance with the bonding procedures previously established. One cylinder was tested 24 hours after cementation, and the other was subjected to thermocycling (2000 cycles) and then submitted to an MSBS test. The data from the hardness and bond strength tests were subjected to one- and two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), respectively, and to Tukey's test (α= 0.05). Results: Scotchbond/RelyX ARC presented higher values of bond strength, while Single Bond/Z350 Flow showed lower values. The thermocycling promoted a reduction in the bond strength values for all groups. Panavia F presented higher values of KHN, and the flowable resin presented the lowest. RelyX ARC and Variolink presented intermediate values on hardness evaluation. Conclusions: For ceramic cementation, dual-cured resin luting systems promoted more reliable bonding and microhardness values than the flowable resin.Journal of Prosthodontics 08/2012; · 1.01 Impact Factor -
Article: Nanoleakage evaluation of resin luting systems to dental enamel and leucite-reinforced ceramic.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the nanoleakage patterns between dental enamel and reinforced leucite ceramic, bonded with resin luting systems and a flowable composite resin. Materials and Methods: Twelve crowns of bovine incisors were randomly divided into four groups (n = 3) according to the luting procedure: Excite/Variolink II, Clearfil SE Bond/Panavia F, Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus/RelyX ARC, and Single Bond 2/Filtek Z350 Flow. To evaluate the nanoleakage patterns, IPS Empress Esthetic disks (5 mm Ø and 1.2-mm thick) were bonded to enamel, and, after 24 h, the specimens were immersed in a 50% (w/v) solution of silver nitrate (24 h), fixed, dehydrated, and processed scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Results: None nanoleakage on interface of the groups that Single Bond 2 followed by the flowable composite were used. The highest percentage of nanoleakage was shown by the Excite/Variolink II protocol. Also, in all conditions tested, none silver nitrate uptake was observed between the leucite-reinforced ceramic and the resin luting cement. Conclusions: The use of a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive with flowable composite was able to promote an adequate seal of the bond interface at the enamel. Moreover, the conventional dual-cured resin cements associated with simplified and dual-cured adhesives tested are also indicated to bond thin ceramics to enamel, since all presented low silver nitrate uptake.Microscopy Research and Technique 12/2011; 75(5):671-6. · 1.79 Impact Factor -
Article: Influence of the LED curing source and selective enamel etching on dentin bond strength of self-etch adhesives in class I composite restorations.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of the LED curing unit and selective enamel etching on dentin microtensile bond strength (μTBS) for self-etch adhesives in class I composite restorations. On 96 human molars, box-shaped class I cavities were made maintaining enamel margins. Self-etch adhesives (Clearfil SE - CSE and Clearfil S(3) - S3) were used to bond a microhybrid composite. Before adhesive application, half of the teeth were enamel acid-etched and the other half was not. Adhesives and composites were cured with the following light curing units (LCUs): one polywave (UltraLume 5 - UL) and two single-peak (FlashLite 1401 - FL and Radii Cal - RD) LEDs. The specimens were then submitted to thermomechanical aging and longitudinally sectioned to obtain bonded sticks (0.9 mm(2)) to be tested in tension at 0.5 mm/min. The failure mode was then recorded. The μTBS data were submitted to a three-way ANOVA and Tukey's (α = 0.05). For S3, the selective enamel-etching provided lower μTBS values (20.7 ± 2.7) compared to the non-etched specimens (26.7 ± 2.2). UL yielded higher μTBS values (24.1 ± 3.2) in comparison to the photoactivation approach with FL (18.8 ±3.9) and RD (19.9 ±1.8) for CSE. The two-step CSE was not influenced by the enamel etching (p ≥ 0.05). Enamel acid etching in class I composite restorations affects the dentin μTBS of the one-step self-etch adhesive Clearfil S(3), with no alterations for Clearfil SE bond strength. The polywave LED promoted better bond strength for the two-step adhesive compared to the single-peak ones.Lasers in Medical Science 11/2011; 27(6):1175-82. · 2.00 Impact Factor
