• Türkçe
    • English
  • English 
    • Türkçe
    • English
  • Login
View Item 
  •   DSpace Home
  • Fakülteler / Faculties
  • Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi / Faculty of Dentistry
  • View Item
  •   DSpace Home
  • Fakülteler / Faculties
  • Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi / Faculty of Dentistry
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Distribution of adhesive layer in class II composite resin restorations before/after interproximal matrix application

Thumbnail
View/Open
Distribution of adhesive layer in class II composite resin restorations beforeafter interproximal matrix application.pdf (6.401Mb)
Date
2020
Author
Muduroglu, Ruhsen
Andrei C., Ionescu
Massimo, Del Fabbro
Salvatore, Scolavino
Eugenio, Brambilla
Metadata
Show full item record
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to morphologically investigate the distribution of the adhesive layer when placed prior, or subsequent, to matrix positioning in direct-bonded Class II RBC restorations. Additional aim was to evaluate possible differences when using two-steps (CSE, Clearfil SE Bond2) or one-step adhesive system (CU, Clearfil Universal Bond Quick). Methods: Standardized mesio-occlusal and disto-occlusal cavities were prepared on 20 human molars. Teeth were randomly allocated to two protocols according to the positioning of contoured sectional metal matrices before (M->A, n = 10), or after adhesive application (A->M, n = 10). Both adhesive systems were additioned with crystal violet dye (CV, 10 vol%). Specimen sections were evaluated using optical and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Dynamic viscosity, pH, microshear bond strength test (mu-SBS) on enamel and dentin, and threepoint bend test (3PB) of polymerized adhesive rods, were performed on both pristine and CV-additioned adhesives. Results: M->A produced a layer of adhesive both on tooth-restoration interface and on external restoration surfaces in contact with the matrix. A->M produced a thin layer of adhesive on external tooth surfaces, well beyond cavity and RBC restoration margins. In all restorations, excess RBC material with uneven margins was observed protruding over the cervical margin. CV addition slightly increased pH and decreased viscosity. mu-SBS: CU + CV showed a 10-fold reduction in adhesion forces on dentine. 3PB: CSE yielded higher flexural strength values than CU. CV addition reduced flexural strength of CSE. Conclusions: Both M > A and A > M generated adhesive placement disadvantages with adhesive materials being expressed in difficult to reach locations that may jeopardize complete adhesive polymerization. Clinical Significance: All cervical margins of RBC restorations should be carefully finished to improve longevity, no matter the clinical protocol adopted. CV addition labelled the tested adhesives without compromising their performances considerably.
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/11727/6304
Collections
  • Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi / Faculty of Dentistry [114]
  • PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu [1656]
  • Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu [2051]
  • Wos İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu [2860]

DSpace software copyright © 2002-2016  DuraSpace
Contact Us | Send Feedback
Theme by 
Atmire NV
 

 

Politika
Açık Bilim Politikası
Kullanıcı Rehberi
Başkent Üniversitesi Kütüphanesi
Başkent Üniversitesi

Browse

All of DSpaceCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsTypeLanguageCategoryThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsTypeLanguageCategory

My Account

LoginRegister

Statistics

View Usage Statistics

DSpace software copyright © 2002-2016  DuraSpace
Contact Us | Send Feedback
Theme by 
Atmire NV