Advertisement

Bond strength of resin composite to differently conditioned amalgam

  • M. ÖzcanEmail author
  • P. K. Vallittu
  • M.-C. Huysmans
  • W. Kalk
  • T. Vahlberg
Article

Abstract

Bulk fracture of teeth, where a part of the amalgam restoration and/or the cusp is fractured, is a common clinical problem. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different surface conditioning methods on the shear bond strength of a hybrid resin composite to fresh amalgam. Amalgams (N = 84) were condensed into acrylic and randomly assigned to one of the following treatments (N = 6): (1) Alloy primer + opaquer, (2) Air-particle abrasion (50 μ m Al2O3) + alloy primer + opaquer, (3) Silica coating (30 μ m SiO x ) + silanization + opaquer, (4) Opaquer + pre-impregnated continuous bidirectional E-glass fibre sheets, (5) Silica coating + silanization + fibre sheets, (6) Silica coating + silanization + opaquer + fibre sheet application. Non-conditioned amalgam surfaces were considered as control group (7). The mean surface roughness depth (R Z ) was measured from the control group and air-abraded amalgam surfaces. The resin composite was bonded to the conditioned amalgam specimens using polyethylene molds. All specimens were tested under dry and thermocycled (6.000, 5–55 C, 30 s) conditions. The shear bond strength of resin composite to amalgam substrates was measured in a universal testing machine (1 mm/min). Surface roughness values for the non-conditioned control group (R Z ∼ 0.14 μ m) and for air-particle abraded surfaces with either Al2O3 or SiO x (R Z ∼ 0.19 μ m and R Z ∼ 0.16 μ m, respectively) did not show significant differences (p = 0.23) (One-way ANOVA). In dry conditions, silica coating and silanization followed by fibre sheet application exhibited significantly higher results (14.8 ± 5.6 MPa) than those of the groups conditioned with alloy primer (2.2 ± 0.7 MPa) (p < 0.001), air-particle abrasion+alloy primer (4.4 ± 2.0 MPa, p < 0.001), silica coating + silanization alone (6.2 ± 0.8 MPa, p = 0.009) or non-conditioned group (1.4 ± 0.6, p < 0.001). Silica coating and silanization followed by additional fibre sheets with opaquer application (23.6 ± 6.9 MPa) increased the bond strength significantly compared to those of other groups (group 5 vs group 6, p = 0.007; other groups vs group 6, p < 0.001). Thermocycling decreased the bond strengths significantly for all of the conditioning methods tested (for group 1, p < 0.001; for group 2, p = 0.013; for group 3, p = 0.002; for group 4, p = 0.026; for group 5, p = 0.002; for group 6, p < 0.001 and for group 7, p < 0.001).

Keywords

Bond Strength Resin Composite Shear Bond Strength Silica Coating Additional Fibre 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    J. D. BADER, J. A. MARTIN and D. A. SHUGARS, J. American Dent. Association 126 (1995) 1650.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. W. HEFT, G. H. GILBERT, T. A. DOLAN and U. FOERSTER, Journal of American Dental Association 131 (2000) 1459.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    W. M. FENNIS, R. H. KUIJS, C. M. KREULEN, F. J. ROETERS, N. H. CREUGERS and R. C. BURGERSDIJK, International Journal of Prosthodontics 15 (2002) 559.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    W. T. CAVEL, W. P. KELSEY and R. J. BLANKENAU, Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 53 (1985) 38.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. L. MORIN, W. H. DOUGLAS, M. CROSS and R. DELONG, Dental Materials 4 (1988) 41.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. LAGOUVARDOS, P. SOURAI and G. DOUVITSAS, Operative Dentistry 14 (1989) 28.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. S. REES, European Journal of Oral Sciences 106 (1998) 1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. C. RANDALL, M. M. VRIJHOEF and N. H. WILSON, Journal of Dentistry 30 (2002) 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    I. A. MJØR and V. V. GORDAN, Operative Dentistry 27 (2002) 528.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. J. ELDERTON, Advances in Dental Research 4 (1990) 4.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. L. LIATUKAS, Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 23 (1970) 560.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. M. LUBOW and R. L. COOLEY, Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 55 (1986) 462.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    P. J. PLASMANS and E. A. REUKERS, Operative Dentistry 18 (1993) 66.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    N. BICHACHO, R. PILO, T. BROSH, M. BERKOVICH and M. HELFT, Operative Dentistry 20 (1995) 68.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    N. D. RUSE, R. T. SEKIMOTO and D. FEDUIK, Operative Dentistry 20 (1995) 180.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    F. S. SALAMA and B. F. EL-MALLAKH, Pediatric Dentistry 19 (1997) 267.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Y. H. AL-JAZAIRY, J. Prosthetic Dent. 85 (2001) 396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. GORDON, B. Z. LAUFER and Z. METZGER, Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 54 (1985) 759.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    D. C. WATTS, H. DEVLIN and J. E. FLETCHER, Journal of Dentistry 20 (1992) 245.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. GIANNINI, L. A. PAULILLO and G. M. AMBROSANO, Brazilian Dental Journal 13 (2002) 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    R. J. MCCONNELL, Journal of Californian Dental Association 21 (1993) 38.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    B. H. MILLER, K. ARITA, N. TAMURA, M. NISHINO, I. GUO and T. OKABE, American Journal of Dentistry 5 (1992) 272.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    M. ÖZCAN, P. PFEIFFER and I. NERGIZ, Quintessence International 29 (1998) 713.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    M. ÖZCAN, Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 87 (2002) 469.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    P. K. VALLITTU, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 29 (2002) 423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    T. OKABE, R. MITCHELL, M. B. BUTTS and C. W. FAIRHURST, Journal of Dental Research 57 (1978) 975.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    L. QUIROZ and E. J. SWIFT Jr, Compendium of Continuous Education in Dentistry 7 (1986) 352.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    H. YANAGIDA, H. MATSUMURA and M. ATSUTA, American Journal of Dentistry 14 (2001) 291.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    W. SCHNEIDER, J. M. POWERS and H. P. PIERPONT, Dental Materials 8 (1992) 211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    T. ANAGNOSTOPOULOS, G. ELIADES and G. PALAGHIAS, Dental Mater. 9 (1993) 182.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    International Organization for Standardization, Amendment ISO 10477, 1996.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    F. HADAVI, J. H. HEY, E. R. AMBROSE and H. E. ELBADRAWY Operative Dentistry, 16 (1991) 175.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    R. L. COOLEY, E. Y. TSENG and W. W. BARKMEIER, Quintessence International 22 (1991) 979.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    J. CHANG, W. SCHERER, A. TAUK and R. MARTINI, Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 67 (1992) 42.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Özcan
    • 1
    Email author
  • P. K. Vallittu
    • 2
  • M.-C. Huysmans
    • 1
  • W. Kalk
    • 1
  • T. Vahlberg
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Dentistry and Dental HygieneUniversity of Groningen, Faculty of Medical SciencesGroningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Prosthetic Dentistry and Biomaterials ResearchUniversity of Turku, Institute of DentistryTurkuFinland
  3. 3.Department of BiostatisticsUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations