THE JOURNAL OF - Dentsply

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Blunck/Zaslansky [% MQ1] 100 95 a. 90 85 Optibond FL 80 75 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 [% MQ1] 100 95 b. 90 85 Syntac 80 75 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 c. [% MQ1] 100 95 90 85 80 75 Clearfil SE Bond T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 Fig 3 Median MQ1 values in % of entire margin length in dentin with error bars indicating the standard error of the mean for the multi-bottle reference materials (a) Opti Bond FL, (b) Syntac and (c) Clearfil SE Bond at the six evaluation stages T1 (after 21 days’ water storage), T2 (after 1st TC), T3 (after 1 year of water storage), T4 (after 2nd TC), T5 (after 3 years of water storage) and T6 (after 3rd TC). Black lines: regression lines weighted by the corresponding standard error; dotted lines: 95% confidence intervals. study, but overall the scores are quite high, perhaps due to the fact that the deterioration is generally quite minimal. Further examination of the present data allows creating a quasi-dynamic perspective of the deterioration rate of the restorations (Fig 3 and Table 3). Thus it is seen that there is a general negative trend in the MQ1 values, when these are determined after water storage and/or thermocycling (TC). Clearly, the specific state of the bond between each restorative and the tooth is not easily determined by any surface-evaluation method, particularly following long-term water storage. The decision was thus made to use TC to induce mild stress to every tooth-restoration interface in order to better reveal its state as determined by the marginal quality evaluation. As can be seen in Table 3, the effect of TC is not constant during early vs late (> 1 year) water storage, and this is attributed to the differences in the adhesive stability in water. A number of publications have dealt with the effects of similar long-term water storage beyond 2 years. 2,3,7,16,22, 23,27 To the best of our knowledge, however, none have managed to produce high-resolution long-term data mapping the marginal quality deterioration on the same samples. Despite the fact that the cavity dimensions were standardized, the amount of stress induced to the interface of each restoration probably varied considerably. This might be due to the large variations in the coefficients of thermal expansion of each restorative 28,29 or possibly due to tooth variability. Be that as it may, because the manufacturer-recommended composites were used, it was assumed that the conditions were optimal for each adhesive, and that the best performance was obtained. It remains to be seen if other combinations of composite/adhesive deliver improved long-term results. Possibly, a standard composite restorative should be used for such tests in the future in order to better compare the effectiveness of the investigated adhesives. The importance of the effect of the composite resins can clearly be seen in the groups of Adper Prompt L-Pop and Xeno III, where large differences in MQ1 values and slopes are seen for the same adhesive. Note however, that while Adper Prompt L-Pop in combination with Tetric Ceram showed a statistically significant decrease in MQ1 compared to the results obtained with Filtek Z250, all three combinations with Xeno III (Dyract XP, Quixfil, and Tetric Ceram) revealed no statistically significant differences in marginal integrity. We therefore conclude that these adhesives react differently to composite resins with higher polymerization shrinkage stress values. Both in vitro 6,7,10,11 and in vivo studies 8,12,13,35,37 have shown that multi-bottle multi-step adhesive systems such as 236 The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
Blunck/Zaslansky Table 3 Slopes of regression lines and statistical significance (p) of results from different evaluation stages after water storage (WS) and thermocycling (TC): columns A + B = 1 st WS vs 1 st TC, columns C + D = 1 st TC vs 2 nd TC, columns E + F = 2 nd TC vs 3 rd TC, columns G + H = 1 st WS vs 2 nd TC. Columns I to L show the slope for the regression lines for all data points of one group, r 2 -values, lower (LCI) and upper confidence intervals (UCI). The last column shows the percentage of deviation between the slopes of the overall regression lines (column I) and the regression lines between 1 st and 2 nd TC (column C). n.a. = not analyzed (data were not available after 3 years of water storage). Column M is the percent deviation calculated by the formula [100*(I col I - col G I/col I)] where col I and col G refer to values in columns I and G, resp. A B C D E F G H I J K L M 1 st WS vs 1 st TC 1 st TC vs 2 nd TC 2 nd TC vs 3 rd TC 1 st WS vs 2 nd TC r 2 LCI UCI % slope p slope p slope p slope p Deviation Syntac / Artemis -2.36 0.173 -0.73 0.028 -0.53 0.028 -1.27 0.028 -0.97 0.91 -1.99 0.05 30.93 OptiBond FL / Herculite XR -1.80 0.018 -1.26 0.069 -1.97 0.017 -1.44 0.017 -1.56 0.98 -2.65 -0.48 7.69 Clearfil SE Bond / Clearfil AP-X 0.00 0.109 -4.33 0.018 -2.88 0.012 -1.53 0.018 -2.50 0.89 -3.41 -1.60 38.80 Prompt L-Pop 1999 / Tetric Ceram -6.11 0.018 -21.99 0.012 -3.40 0.012 -16.70 0.012 -13.06 0.95 -15.45 -10.68 27.87 Prompt L-Pop 2000 / Tetric Ceram -6.94 0.018 -4.01 0.093 -3.71 0.012 -4.99 0.012 -4.52 0.98 -5.80 -3.25 10.40 Adper Prompt L-Pop / Tetric Ceram -6.23 0.018 -10.51 0.012 -6.17 0.012 -9.08 0.012 -8.55 0.98 -10.30 -6.81 6.20 Adper Prompt L-Pop / Filtek Z250 -3.32 0.018 -3.69 0.012 -1.55 0.012 -3.56 0.012 -2.95 0.97 -3.83 -2.06 20.68 Xeno III / Tetric Ceram -0.89 0.068 -2.13 0.043 -0.92 0.018 -1.72 0.028 -1.35 0.91 -2.78 0.07 27.41 Xeno III / Dyract eXtra -2.61 0.043 -0.40 0.043 -0.84 0.012 -1.13 0.043 -1.09 0.92 -2.80 0.62 3.67 Xeno III / Quixfil -1.77 0.138 -2.72 0.028 n.a. n.a. -2.40 0.028 -2.07 0.96 -4.65 0.51 15.94 Futurabond NR / Grandio -3.83 0.028 -1.32 0.018 n.a. n.a. -2.15 0.018 -2.21 0.94 -4.34 -0.09 2.71 One-up Bond F Plus/ Estilite -6.43 0.012 -11.49 0.012 n.a. n.a. -9.80 0.012 -6.65 0.77 -12.77 -0.53 47.37 AQ Bond / Metafil CX 0.00 0.109 -2.66 0.401 -1.60 0.069 -1.77 0.028 -1.63 0.96 -2.36 -0.90 8.59 Hybrid Bond / Metafil -4.31 0.018 -1.83 0.018 n.a. n.a. -2.66 0.018 -2.62 0.95 -4.94 -0.30 1.53 iBond / Charisma -0.95 0.043 -3.07 0.028 -0.95 0.012 -2.36 0.028 -1.83 0.95 -2.99 -0.68 28.96 G-Bond / Gradia -4.22 0.012 -7.16 0.012 n.a. n.a. -6.18 0.012 -4.61 0.78 -8.44 -0.78 34.06 tri-S Bond / Clearfil AP-X -6.20 0.012 -3.12 0.012 n.a. n.a. -4.15 0.012 -3.90 0.93 -6.03 -1.76 6.41 Vol 9, Supplement 2, 2007 237
Page 1 and 2: THE JOURNAL OF ADHESIVE DENTISTRY V
Page 3 and 4: Guest Editorial Satellite Symposium
Page 5 and 6: THE JOURNAL OF ADHESIVE DENTISTRY C
Page 7 and 8: Dental Adhesives …. How it All St
Page 9 and 10: Söderholm resulted in a new genera
Page 11 and 12: Effectiveness of All-in-one Adhesiv
Page 13 and 14: Blunck/Zaslansky composites were us
Page 15: Blunck/Zaslansky 0 20 40 60 80 100
Page 19 and 20: Blunk/Zaslansky many of the product
Page 21 and 22: Clinical Bonding of a Single-step S
Page 23 and 24: van Dijken et al DISCUSSION The rap
Page 25 and 26: Shear Bond Strength and Physicochem
Page 27 and 28: Latta Fig 1 Representative spectra
Page 29 and 30: Microshear Fatigue Testing of Tooth
Page 31 and 32: Braem Fig 1 Positioning of the dent
Page 33 and 34: Braem the number of steps but also
Page 35 and 36: Microleakage of Class V Composite R
Page 37 and 38: Rosales-Leal Fig 1 Percentage of ca
Page 39 and 40: Rosales-Leal fect the occlusal seal
Page 41 and 42: Microleakage of XP Bond in Class II
Page 43 and 44: Manhart/Trumm heim, Germany), resul
Page 45 and 46: Six-month Clinical Evaluation of XP
Page 47 and 48: Blunck et al Table 2 Results of the
Page 49 and 50: Adhesive Luting Revisited: Influenc
Page 51 and 52: Frankenberger et al Table 2 Results
Page 53 and 54: Frankenberger et al or resin coatin
Page 55 and 56: XP BOND in Self-curing Mode used fo
Page 57 and 58: Raffaelli et al Table 2 Bond streng
Page 59 and 60: XP BOND in Self-curing mode used fo
Page 61 and 62: Ferrari et al Table 2 Performance c
Page 63: Sarrett Vol 9, Supplement 1, 2007 2

THE JOURNAL OF - Dentsply

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?