Flexural properties and dentin adhesion in recently developed self-adhesive bulk-fill materials

François, Philippe; Remadi, Anis; Goff, Stan; Abdel-Gawad, S. R.; Attal, Jean‐Pierre; Dursun, Elisabeth

doi:10.2334/josnusd.20-0448

Cited by 43 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This point was reinforced by the fact that all the observed failure modes were cohesive. This observation could be due to the fact that a 800 grits polishing roughness corresponds to the finish obtained with a red-ring diamond bur [ 23 ]. This significant roughness is suggested by the SEM images for different groups, as previously described, and is able to provide correct micromechanical bonding with direct resin composites and can be improved with higher surface roughness [ 24 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shear Bond Strength of a Direct Resin Composite to CAD-CAM Composite Blocks: Relative Contribution of Micromechanical and Chemical Block Surface Treatment

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of a direct resin composite to CAD-CAM resin composite blocks treated with different surface treatments: micromechanical, chemical or a combination of both. Eight CAD-CAM resin composite blocks, namely Brilliant Crios, Cerasmart 270, Vita Enamic, Grandio block, Katana Avencia, Lava Ultimate, Tetric CAD and Shofu Block HC were chosen. The micromechanical surface treatment protocols tested were hydrofluoric acid, polyacrylic acid or sandblasting, and the chemical one was a universal primer. These treated CAD-CAM blocks were tested to determine the SBS of a light-curing composite resin Z100 bonded to their surface. Two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test was used to investigate the difference in SBS. Failures were analyzed by Fisher’s exact test. Bonding interfaces were examined by scanning electron microscopy. The micromechanical surface treatments give the highest SBS values: sandblasting appears to be the most efficient procedure for dispersed filler composite blocks, while hydrofluoric acid etching is preferable for polymer-infiltrated ceramic network (PICN) blocks. The use of universal primer does not improve SBS values on dispersed filler composite blocks. For PICN blocks, the use of universal primer significantly increases SBS values when combined with hydrofluoric acid etching.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shear Bond Strength of a Direct Resin Composite to CAD-CAM Composite Blocks: Relative Contribution of Micromechanical and Chemical Block Surface Treatment

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, Philippe François et al . showed that Activa BioActive Restorative with a bonding agent presented higher SBS than Activa BioActive Restorative without a bonding agent ( 36 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In-vitro evaluation of the shear bond strength and fluoride release of a new bioactive dental composite material

Rifai¹,

Qasim²,

Mahdi³

et al. 2022

J Clin Exp Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The aim of this study was (1) to determine and compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of a bioactive composite “Activa Bioactive Restorative” with and without bonding agent and a nanocomposite “Filtek Z350 XT/Z350” and (2) to measure and compare the amount of fluoride release from a bioactive composite “Activa Bioactive Restorative” and a glass ionomer ”Equia forte”. Material and Methods Forty two dentin surfaces from freshly extracted human molars were prepared for shear bond strength testing. The specimens were randomly divided into three equal groups. The restorative materials were applied to all dentin surfaces according to the manufacturer’s instructions, using a special jig (Ultradent) in the following manner : Group 1 (Activa Bioactive Restorative with adhesive), Group 2 (Activa Bioactive Restorative without adhesive) and Group 3 (Filtek Z350 XT/Z350). The bonded specimens were subjected to thermocycling in 5°C and 55°C water baths then tested for SBS in a universal testing machine (1 mm/minute). Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Levene tests were used to evaluate the distribution of the variable and the equality of variances respectively and a Student’s T- test was applied to compare the mean strength between the groups. In the next test, thirty disc shaped specimens were fabricated using Activa BioActive restorative and Equia Forte; 15 specimens from each material. The specimens of each group were immersed separately in 5 ml of deionized water. Fluoride release was measured daily throughout 15 days using a fluoride-specific ion electrode and an ion-analyzer. Repeated measures analysis of variance with one within-subject factor (time) and one between-subject factor (Activa Bioactive / Equia Forte) was applied to compare the amount of released fluoride between groups and within time. It was followed by univariate analyses and Bonferroni multiple comparisons tests. Results The mean shear bond strength of Activa Bioactive Restorative with adhesive was found to be 17.379 (± 8.5043) MPa and 19.443(± 8.3293) MPa for the Filtek Z350 XT/Z350 group. There was no significant difference between both groups. Regarding fluoride release, the amount of Fluoride released was significantly greater in the Equia Forte group compared to the Activa Bioactive group (- p-value <0.05). The mean amount of Fluoride has significantly decreased over time with Activa Bioactive group (- p-value <0.001); it showed the highest fluoride release during the first 24 hours post-setting. Also in the Equia Forte group, the mean amount of Fluoride release showed a progressive and significant decrease over time (- p-value <0.001), although the amount of Fluoride released was significantly greater in the Equia Forte group compared to the Activa Bioactive group (- p-value <0.05). Conclusions Activa Bioactive Restorative with adhesive and ...

show abstract

“…A previous study has compared the Alk with several bulk materials and it observed the highest shear bond strength value (33.8 MPa) for the Alk in adhesively bonded condition. When Alkasite was applied without adhesive, it critically showed only 3 MPa as a bond strength [15]. Therefore, the present study considered the condition with a proper adhesion between the restoration and cavity walls, and a non-retentive preparation design was simulated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is a bulkfill material available for both dual-and self-cure modes with promising chemical and physical properties as a direct dental material. Previous results for microleakage [11,12], flexural strength [13,14], shear bond strength [14,15], compressive strength [12,14], and microhardness [12][13][14][15] indicate that direct filling restorative material is promising. Based on its mechanical [12,13] and optical properties added to its bioactive properties of ion release (calcium, hydroxyl, and fluoride), it is indicated to stabilize oral pH and form apatite [16] by reducing demineralization and inducing dental remineralization.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mechanical Behavior of Alkasite Posterior Restorations in Comparison to Polymeric Materials: A 3D-FEA Study

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present investigation evaluated the effect of the combination of different dental filling materials in Class I cavities under occlusal loading using three-dimensional finite elements analysis (FEA). Six computer-generated and restored models of a lower molar were created in the CAD software and compared according to the biomechanical response during chewing load condition. Two adhesively bonded bulk restorative materials [bulk-fill resin composite (BF) or Alkasite (Alk)] were evaluated with or without the presence of a base material below (flowable resin composite or glass ionomer cement). A food bolus was placed on the occlusal surface mimicking the compressive occlusal load (600 N) during the static linear analysis. The maximum principal stress (tensile) was calculated as stress criteria in enamel, dentin and restoration. All models showed high stresses along the enamel/restoration margin with a similar stress trend for models restored with the same upper-layer material. Stress values up to 12.04 MPa (Alk) or up to 11.12 MPa (BF) were recorded at the enamel margins. The use of flexible polymeric or ionic base material in combination with bulk-fill resin composite or Alk did not reduce the stress magnitude in dentine and enamel. Class I cavities adhesively restored with bulk-fill resin composite showed lighter stress concentration as well as Alk. Therefore, adhesively bonded Alk restoration showed a promising mechanical behavior when used with different base materials or as a bulk restoration for posterior Class I cavity.

show abstract

Flexural properties and dentin adhesion in recently developed self-adhesive bulk-fill materials

Cited by 43 publications

References 30 publications

Shear Bond Strength of a Direct Resin Composite to CAD-CAM Composite Blocks: Relative Contribution of Micromechanical and Chemical Block Surface Treatment

Shear Bond Strength of a Direct Resin Composite to CAD-CAM Composite Blocks: Relative Contribution of Micromechanical and Chemical Block Surface Treatment

In-vitro evaluation of the shear bond strength and fluoride release of a new bioactive dental composite material

Mechanical Behavior of Alkasite Posterior Restorations in Comparison to Polymeric Materials: A 3D-FEA Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About