Reducing composite restoration polymerization shrinkage stress through resin modified glass‐ionomer based adhesives

Reducing composite restoration polymerization shrinkage stress through resin modified glass‐ionomer based adhesives

Background The aim of this study was to determine whether employing resin modified glass‐ionomer based adhesives can reduce polymerization contraction stress generated at the interface of restorative composite adhesive systems. Methods Five resin based adhesives (G Bond, Optibond‐All‐in‐One, Optibon...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Australian dental journal Vol. 60; no. 4; pp. 490 - 496
Main Authors: Naoum, SJ, Mutzelburg, PR, Shumack, TG, Thode, DJG, Martin, FE, Ellakwa, AE
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Australia 01-12-2015
Subjects:
Acrylic Resins
Adhesives - chemistry
Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate - chemistry
Composite Resins - chemistry
Dental Bonding
Dental Cements - chemistry
Dental Materials - chemistry
Dentine bonding
Dentistry
Glass Ionomer Cements - chemistry
Humans
Materials Testing
Methacrylates - chemistry
Polymerization
polymerization shrinkage
Resin Cements - chemistry
resin composite
resin modified glass‐ionomer
Riva Bond LC
Silicon Dioxide
resin modified glass-ionomer
Riva Bond LC
Dentine bonding
polymerization shrinkage
resin composite
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background The aim of this study was to determine whether employing resin modified glass‐ionomer based adhesives can reduce polymerization contraction stress generated at the interface of restorative composite adhesive systems. Methods Five resin based adhesives (G Bond, Optibond‐All‐in‐One, Optibond‐Solo, Optibond‐XTR and Scotchbond‐Universal) and two resin modified glass‐ionomer based adhesives (Riva Bond‐LC, Fuji Bond‐LC) were analysed. Each adhesive was applied to bond restorative composite Filtek‐Z250 to opposing acrylic rods secured within a universal testing machine. Stress developed at the interface of each adhesive‐restorative composite system (n = 5) was calculated at 5‐minute intervals over 6 hours. Results The resin based adhesive‐restorative composite systems (RBA‐RCS) demonstrated similar interface stress profiles over 6 hours; initial rapid contraction stress development (0–300 seconds) followed by continued contraction stress development ≤0.02MPa/s (300 seconds – 6 hours). The interface stress profile of the resin modified glass‐ionomer based adhesive‐restorative composite systems (RMGIBA‐RCS) differed substantially to the RBA‐RCS in several ways. Firstly, during 0–300 seconds the rate of contraction stress development at the interface of the RMGIBA‐RCS was significantly (p < 0.05) lower than at the interface of the RBA‐RCS. Secondly, at 300 seconds and 6 hours the interface contraction stress magnitude of the RMGIBA‐RCS was significantly (p < 0.05) lower than the stress of all assessed RBA‐RCS. Thirdly, from 300 seconds to 6 hours both the magnitude and rate of interface stress of the RMGIBA‐RCS continued to decline over the 6 hours from the 300 seconds peak. Conclusions The use of resin modified glass‐ionomer based adhesives can significantly reduce the magnitude and rate of polymerization contraction stress developed at the interface of adhesive‐restorative composite systems.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0045-0421
1834-7819
DOI:10.1111/adj.12265