REPAIR BOND STRENGTH OF AN AGED/NON-AGED GLASS HYBRID RESTORATIVE WITH DIFFERENT MATERIALS

YAZICI, Ayşe Rüya; meral, ece; Uslu Tekce, Aybüke

REPAIR BOND STRENGTH OF AN AGED/NON-AGED GLASS HYBRID RESTORATIVE WITH DIFFERENT MATERIALS

Ece MERAL, (Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi, Restoratif Diş Tedavisi Anabilim Dalı, Ankara, Türkiye)

Aybüke USLU TEKCE, (Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi, Restoratif Diş Tedavisi Anabilim Dalı, Ankara Türkiye)

Ayşe Rüya YAZICI (Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi, Restoratif Diş Tedavisi Anabilim Dalı, Ankara,Türkiye)

Clinical Dentistry and Research

11 3

Yıl: 2021 Cilt: 45 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 78 - 85 Metin Dili: İngilizce İndeks Tarihi: 06-06-2022

REPAIR BOND STRENGTH OF AN AGED/NON-AGED GLASS HYBRID RESTORATIVE WITH DIFFERENT MATERIALS

Öz:

Background and Aim: To evaluate the tensile bond strength of an aged/non-aged glass hybrid restorative repaired with different restorative materials. Methods: A total of 60 beam-shaped specimens (16x2x2 mm) were prepared using glass-hybrid restorative material (Equia Forte, GC) and then divided into two main groups (n=30); I-non- aged, II-aged (5000X;5-55°C). Twelve specimens from each group were left intact for control group (without repair) and the rest 18 specimens were sectioned into two halves acquiring 36 beams. The groups (I and II) were then subdivided into four groups according to the repairing materials (n=12); a- control (Intact glass hybrid (GH), Equia Forte (GC Co.), b- glass hybrid, Equia Forte, c- a resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMCIS), Riva Light Cure (SDI Limited), d- a microhybrid resin composite (CR), Gradia direct posterior (GC Co.) After 24 h storage, the specimens were subjected to tensile bond strength test and the data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni test (p<0.05). Results: The tensile bond strength of the artificially aged group repaired with resin composite, Gradia Direct Posterior was found to be significantly higher than non-aged group (p<0.05). No statistically significant difference was found between aged and non-aged groups for the rest of the materials (p>0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the repairing materials and control group regardless of aging (p>0.05). Conclusion: The tested glass-hybrid restorative material exhibited better tensile bond strength after artificial aging when repaired with resin composite. Aging did not affect the bond strength of glass-hybrid material when repaired with the glass-ionomer based restorative materials.

Anahtar Kelime:

YAŞLANDIRILMIŞ / YAŞLANDIRILMAMIŞ CAM HİBRİT RESTORATİFİN FARKLI MALZEMELERLE, TAMİR BAĞLANMA DAYANIMI

Öz:

Amaç: Yaşlandırılmış ve yaşlandırılmamış cam hibrid restoratifin, farklı restoratif materyallere olan çekme bağlanma dayanıklılığının incelenmesi. Yöntem: Cam hibrid restoratif materyal (Equia Forte, GC) kullanılarak toplamda 60 adet 16x2x2 mm boyutlarında örnek hazırlanmış ve (n= 30); Grup I: Yaşlandırılmamış, Grup II: Yaşlandırılmış (5000X;5-55°C) örnekleri içerecek şekilde iki ayrı gruba ayrılmıştır. Her iki gruptan 12’şer örnek, kontrol grubu olarak ayrılmıştır ve kalan 18 örnek ortadan ikiye kesilerek 36’şar adet örnek elde edilmiştir. Her iki grup da daha sonra, uygulanacak tamir materyaline göre 4 alt gruba ayrılmıştır (m =12); a) Kontrol (kesilmemiş cam hibrid örnekler, Equia Forte, GC), b) Cam hibrid restoratif materyal (Equia Forte, GC), c) Rezin modifiye cam iyonomer siman (RivaLightCure, SDI), d) mikrohibrid rezin kompozit (Gradia direct posterior, GC). 24 saat bekletildikten sonra, örnekler çekme bağlanma dayanıklılığı testine tabi tutulmuş ve veriler çift yönlü ANOVA ve Bonferroni testleri kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. (p< 0.05) Bulgular: Yaşlandırılmış ve kompozit rezin ile tamir edilmiş grubun çekme bağlanma dayanıklılığı, yaşlandırılmamış gruba göre anlamlı derecede yüksek bulunmuştur. (p<0,05) Diğer materyaller için, yaşlandırılmış ve yaşlandırılmamış gruplar arasında istatistiksel açıdan anlamlı bir fark görülmemiştir. (p>0,05) Tamir edilmiş gruplarla kontrol grupları arasında, yaşlandırılmaya bağlı olmaksızın, herhangi bir fark gözlenmemiştir. (p> 0,05) Sonuç: Test edilen cam hibrid restoratif materyalin kompozit rezinle tamir edildiği durumda, yaşlandırılmış örnekler, yaşlandırılmamış olanlara göre daha yüksek bağlanma değerleri göstermişlerdir. Yaşlandırma, cam hibrid restoratif materyal, cam iyonomer esaslı materyallerle tamir edildiğinde, bağlanma kuvvetini etkilememiştir.

Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık

1. Mount GJ, Ngo H. Minimal intervention: a new concept for operative dentistry. Quintessence Int 2000; 31(8): 527-533. 2. Davidson CL. Advances in glass-ionomer cements. J Appl Oral Sci 2006; 14 Suppl: 3-9.
3. Lohbauer U. Dental glass ionomer cements as permanent filling materials?–properties, limitations and future trends. Materials 2010; 3(1): 76-96.
4. Yasa E, Atalayin C, Karacolak G, Sarı T, Turkun LS. Intrapulpal temperature changes during curing of different bulk-fill restorative materials. Dent Mater J 2017: 2016-200.
5. Schwendicke F, Kniess J, Paris S, Blunck U. Margin integrity and secondary caries of lined or non-lined composite and glass hybrid restorations after selective excavation in vitro. Oper Dent 2017; 42(2): 155-164.
6. Kamath U, Salam A. Fracture resistance of maxillary premolars with mod cavities restored with Zirconomer: An in vitro comparative study. Int J Appl Dent Sci 2016; 2: 77-80.
7. Özcan M, Barbosa SH, Melo RM, Galhano GAP, Bottino MA. Effect of surface conditioning methods on the microtensile bond strength of resin composite to composite after aging conditions. Dent Mater 2007; 23(10): 1276-1282.
8. Gordan VV, MJÖR IA, Blum IR, Wilson N. Teaching students the repair of resin-based composite restorations: a survey of North American dental schools. JADA 2003; 134(3): 317-323.
9. Ong JE-X, Yap A, Hong JY, Eweis AH, Yahya NA. Viscoelastic properties of contemporary bulk-fill restoratives: A dynamic- mechanical analysis. Oper Dent 2018; 43(3): 307-314.
10. Collado-González M, Pecci-Lloret MR, Tomás-Catalá CJ, García- Bernal D, Oñate-Sánchez RE, Llena C, et al. Thermo-setting glass ionomer cements promote variable biological responses of human dental pulp stem cells. Dent Mater 2018; 34(6): 932-943.
11. Francois P, Vennat E, Le Goff S, Ruscassier N, Attal J-P, Dursun E. Shear bond strength and interface analysis between a resin composite and a recent high-viscous glass ionomer cement bonded with various adhesive systems. Clin Oral Invest 2019; 23(6): 2599- 2608.
12. Maneenut C, Sakoolnamarka R, Tyas MJ. The repair potential of resin-modified glass-ionomer cements. Dent Mater 2010; 26(7): 659-665.
13. Parra M, Kopel H. Shear bond strength of repaired glass ionomers. Am J Dent 1992; 5(3): 133-136.
14. Shaffer R, Charlton D, Hermesch C. Repairability of three resin- modified glass-ionomer restorative materials. Oper Dent 1998; 23: 168-172.
15. Pearson G, Bowen G, Jacobsen P, Atkinson A. The flexural strength of repaired glass-ionomer cements. Dent Mater 1989; 5(1): 10-12.
16. Brackett WW, Johnston WM. Repair of glass ionomer restorative materials: Flexure strength of specimens repaired by two methods. J Prosthet Dent 1989; 62(3): 261-264.
17. Equia forte GC Europe; 2015 [Available from: https://cdn. gceurope.com/v1/PID/equiaforte/leaflet/LFL_EQUIA_Forte_ en.pdf.
18. Yap A, Lye K, Sau C. Effects of aging on repair of resin-modified glass–ionomer cements. J OralRehabil 2000; 27(5): 422-427.
19. Zoergiebel J, Ilie N. An in vitro study on the maturation of conventional glass ionomer cements and their interface to dentin. Acta Biomater 2013; 9(12): 9529-9537.
20. Yoshida Y, Yoshihara K, Hayakawa S, Nagaoka N, Okihara T, Matsumoto T et al. HEMA inhibits interfacial nano-layering of the functional monomer MDP. J Dental Research 2012; 91(11): 1060- 1065.
21. Anusavice KJ, Shen C, Rawls HR. Phillips’ science of dental materials: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2012.
22. Anastasiadis K, Koulaouzidou EA, Palaghias G, Eliades G. Bonding of composite to base materials: effects of adhesive treatments on base surface properties and bond strength. J Adhes Dent 2018; 19: 1-14.
23. Jamaluddin A, Pearson G. Repair of glass ionomer cements— methods for conditioning the surface of the cement to achieve bonding. J OraRehabil 1994; 21(6): 649-653.

APA	meral e, Uslu Tekce A, YAZICI A (2021). REPAIR BOND STRENGTH OF AN AGED/NON-AGED GLASS HYBRID RESTORATIVE WITH DIFFERENT MATERIALS. , 78 - 85.
Chicago	meral ece,Uslu Tekce Aybüke,YAZICI Ayşe Rüya REPAIR BOND STRENGTH OF AN AGED/NON-AGED GLASS HYBRID RESTORATIVE WITH DIFFERENT MATERIALS. (2021): 78 - 85.
MLA	meral ece,Uslu Tekce Aybüke,YAZICI Ayşe Rüya REPAIR BOND STRENGTH OF AN AGED/NON-AGED GLASS HYBRID RESTORATIVE WITH DIFFERENT MATERIALS. , 2021, ss.78 - 85.
AMA	meral e,Uslu Tekce A,YAZICI A REPAIR BOND STRENGTH OF AN AGED/NON-AGED GLASS HYBRID RESTORATIVE WITH DIFFERENT MATERIALS. . 2021; 78 - 85.
Vancouver	meral e,Uslu Tekce A,YAZICI A REPAIR BOND STRENGTH OF AN AGED/NON-AGED GLASS HYBRID RESTORATIVE WITH DIFFERENT MATERIALS. . 2021; 78 - 85.
IEEE	meral e,Uslu Tekce A,YAZICI A "REPAIR BOND STRENGTH OF AN AGED/NON-AGED GLASS HYBRID RESTORATIVE WITH DIFFERENT MATERIALS." , ss.78 - 85, 2021.
ISNAD	meral, ece vd. "REPAIR BOND STRENGTH OF AN AGED/NON-AGED GLASS HYBRID RESTORATIVE WITH DIFFERENT MATERIALS". (2021), 78-85.

APA	meral e, Uslu Tekce A, YAZICI A (2021). REPAIR BOND STRENGTH OF AN AGED/NON-AGED GLASS HYBRID RESTORATIVE WITH DIFFERENT MATERIALS. Clinical Dentistry and Research, 45(2), 78 - 85.
Chicago	meral ece,Uslu Tekce Aybüke,YAZICI Ayşe Rüya REPAIR BOND STRENGTH OF AN AGED/NON-AGED GLASS HYBRID RESTORATIVE WITH DIFFERENT MATERIALS. Clinical Dentistry and Research 45, no.2 (2021): 78 - 85.
MLA	meral ece,Uslu Tekce Aybüke,YAZICI Ayşe Rüya REPAIR BOND STRENGTH OF AN AGED/NON-AGED GLASS HYBRID RESTORATIVE WITH DIFFERENT MATERIALS. Clinical Dentistry and Research, vol.45, no.2, 2021, ss.78 - 85.
AMA	meral e,Uslu Tekce A,YAZICI A REPAIR BOND STRENGTH OF AN AGED/NON-AGED GLASS HYBRID RESTORATIVE WITH DIFFERENT MATERIALS. Clinical Dentistry and Research. 2021; 45(2): 78 - 85.
Vancouver	meral e,Uslu Tekce A,YAZICI A REPAIR BOND STRENGTH OF AN AGED/NON-AGED GLASS HYBRID RESTORATIVE WITH DIFFERENT MATERIALS. Clinical Dentistry and Research. 2021; 45(2): 78 - 85.
IEEE	meral e,Uslu Tekce A,YAZICI A "REPAIR BOND STRENGTH OF AN AGED/NON-AGED GLASS HYBRID RESTORATIVE WITH DIFFERENT MATERIALS." Clinical Dentistry and Research, 45, ss.78 - 85, 2021.
ISNAD	meral, ece vd. "REPAIR BOND STRENGTH OF AN AGED/NON-AGED GLASS HYBRID RESTORATIVE WITH DIFFERENT MATERIALS". Clinical Dentistry and Research 45/2 (2021), 78-85.