Shear Bond Strength of Self-Adhesive Flowable Composite, Conventional Flowable Composite and Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement to Primary Dentin

Poorzandpoush, Kiana; Shahrabi, Mehdi; Heidari, Alireza; Hosseinipour, Zohre Sadat

doi:10.18502/fid.v16i1.1111

Cited by 13 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In total, 23 in vitro studies met inclusion criteria (published between 2012 and 2019) 8,9,16,[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] and most of them (n=18) used permanent teeth (ranging from 30 to 160) for the bonding tests. The bond strength of SAFRCs to primary teeth was evaluated in six studies, published between 2013 and 2019 16,22,26,30,34,38 . Vertise® Flow (Kerr Corp, Orange, CA, USA) (n=22) followed by Fusio™ Liquid Dentin (Pentron Clinical, Orange, CA, USA) (n=5) were the most tested SAFRCs, while Constic® was evaluated only in three studies 29,35,37 .…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The bond strength of SAFRCs was mainly assessed by shear bonding test (n=20) 8,16,[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][29][30][31][32][33][35][36][37][38][39] and tensile bonding test (n=3) 9,28,34 , using dentin (n=13), enamel (n=3) or both tissues (n=7) as substrates. Most studies tested the immediate bond strength of SAFRCs to enamel and dentin.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most studies tested the immediate bond strength of SAFRCs to enamel and dentin. Only six studies employed thermocycling as an aging method and the number of cycles varied from 500 to 5000 (temperature from 5ºC to 55ºC) 26,29,33,35,36,38 .…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Bond strength of self-adhesive flowable resin composites to tooth structure

Troconis

Pérez

2021

Braz. J. Oral Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To review the current literature regarding the bond strength of self-adhesive flowable resin composites (SAFRCs) to tooth structure, comparing the outcomes with conventional flowable resin composites (CFRCs). Methods: PubMed/Medline, EbscoHost and Scopus databases were screened (last update on November 2020) using related Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and free terms. We included in vitro studies published in English language comparing the bond strength of SAFRCs and CFRCs to enamel and/or dentin from primary and/or permanent teeth. Results: In total, 23 articles were included. Unlike CFRCs, SAFRCs such as Vertise® Flow and Fusio™ Liquid Dentin exhibited statistically lower bond strength to enamel and dentin from permanent teeth. There were limited studies comparing the enamel bond strength of CFRCs and SAFRCs (prior phosphoric acid etching and/or adhesive system use). Also, we found few studies that evaluated the bonding effectiveness of Constic® and other SAFRCs to primary teeth. Conclusions: Current SAFRCs showed low bond strength to permanent teeth, which impedes to recommend them as a reliable alternative to CFRCs. The bonding performance of Constic® on both hard dental tissues should be evaluated on future studies. Also, more evidence assessing the bond strength of SAFRCs to primary teeth and etched enamel is needed.

show abstract

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bond strength of self-adhesive flowable resin composites to tooth structure

Troconis

Pérez

2021

Braz. J. Oral Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, Almaz et al 16 measured the µSBS of self-adhering flowable composites to dentin samples, which was similar to the methodology adopted by Moslemi et al 11 The results showed that self-adhering flowable composites yielded the lowest µSBS, which was in agreement with our findings. Sachdeva et al, 19 Pacific et al, 20 and Poorzandpoush et al 21 used primary dentin samples for the assessment of shear bond strength. Their results were in line with ours, although we evaluated primary enamel.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microshear Bond Strength of a Self-adhesive Composite to Erbium Laser-Treated Primary Enamel

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Advances have been made in the composition of flowable composites in recent years and self-adhering composites, which do not require a bonding agent, have recently been introduced to the market. This study aimed to assess the microshear bond strength (µSBS) of a self-adhering flowable composite (Vertise) to primary enamel treated with a graphite disc with silicon carbide particles (SIC) and laser irradiation, the result of which was compared to that of a conventional flowable composite (Premise). Methods: In this in vitro, experimental study, 72 samples of sound primary enamel were evaluated. A smooth enamel surface was obtained using a graphite disc. Next, the erbium chromium yttrium scandium gallium garnet (Er,Cr:YSGG) laser was used for enamel surface treatment in half of the samples (n=36). All the samples were then randomly divided into 4 groups of (i) Premise flowable composite (PF) without laser (n=18), (ii) Vertise flowable composite (VF) without laser (n=18), (iii) PF with laser (n=18), and (iv) VF with laser (n=18). The teeth were then incubated at 37°C for 24 hours and were then subjected to thermocycling. The µSBS of samples was measured using a universal testing machine and reported in megapascal (MPa). Data were analyzed using SPSS via the two-way ANOVA and independent-samples t test at P<0.05. Results: The mean µSBS of VF was significantly higher to the laser-treated samples (13.60±5.47) compared with the non-treated samples (5.89±2.42) (P<0.001). However, no significant difference was noted in the µSBS of PF to the laser-treated (13.18±3.45) and non-treated samples (16.06±3.52) (P=0.058). Conclusion: The µSBS of the conventional flowable composite is higher than that of the selfadhering flowable composite to the enamel of primary teeth. Enamel surface treatment with laser irradiation increases the µSBS of self-adhering flowable composites.

show abstract

“…The increased demand for cosmetics and tooth structure preservation leads to the development of adhesive restorative materials which bond to the enamel and dentin, where flowable composite resin is a type of adhesive restorative materials that gained popularity from its low viscosity, which lead to less tooth preparation in preventive resin restorations and superficial restorations 7,8 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shear Bond Strength of Composite Resin and Conventional Flowable Composite in Primary Molars Prepared by Bond prep mode and Cutting mode Er, Cr:YSGG Laser (an in vitro study)

Sabah

2019

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Shear Bond Strength of Self-Adhesive Flowable Composite, Conventional Flowable Composite and Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement to Primary Dentin

Cited by 13 publications

References 19 publications

Bond strength of self-adhesive flowable resin composites to tooth structure

Bond strength of self-adhesive flowable resin composites to tooth structure

Microshear Bond Strength of a Self-adhesive Composite to Erbium Laser-Treated Primary Enamel

Shear Bond Strength of Composite Resin and Conventional Flowable Composite in Primary Molars Prepared by Bond prep mode and Cutting mode Er, Cr:YSGG Laser (an in vitro study)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About