Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics

Review Article

Wear of contemporary dental composite resin restorations: a literature review: Dimitrios Dionysopoulos, Olga Gerasimidou; Restor Dent Endod 2021;46(2):e18. Published online February 25, 2021; DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2021.46.e18

Abstract PDF PubReader ePub: Composite resins are the most commonly used dental restorative materials after minimally invasive dental procedures, and they offer an aesthetically pleasing appearance. An ideal composite restorative material should have wear properties similar to those of tooth tissues. Wear refers to the damaging, gradual loss or deformation of a material at solid surfaces. Depending on the mechanism of action, wear can be categorized as abrasive, adhesive, fatigue, or corrosive. Currently used composite resins cover a wide range of materials with diverse properties, offering dental clinicians multiple choices for anterior and posterior teeth. In order to improve the mechanical properties and the resistance to wear of composite materials, many types of monomers, silane coupling agents, and reinforcing fillers have been developed. Since resistance to wear is an important factor in determining the clinical success of composite resins, the purpose of this literature review was to define what constitutes wear. The discussion focuses on factors that contribute to the extent of wear as well as to the prevention of wear. Finally, the behavior of various types of existing composite materials such as nanohybrid, flowable, and computer-assisted design/computer-assisted manufacturing materials, was investigated, along with the factors that may cause or contribute to their wear.

38 View
2 Download
26 Web of Science

Research Article

Microtensile bond strength of CAD/CAM-fabricated polymer-ceramics to different adhesive resin cements: Leyla Sadighpour, Farideh Geramipanah, Zahra Ghasri, Mehrnoosh Neshatian; Restor Dent Endod 2018;43(4):e40. Published online September 3, 2018; DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2018.43.e40

Abstract PDF PubReader ePub: Objectives
This study evaluated the microtensile bond strength (µTBS) of polymer-ceramic and indirect composite resin with 3 classes of resin cements.
Materials and Methods
Two computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM)-fabricated polymer-ceramics (Enamic [ENA; Vita] and Lava Ultimate [LAV; 3M ESPE]) and a laboratory indirect composite resin (Gradia [GRA; GC Corp.]) were equally divided into 6 groups (n = 18) with 3 classes of resin cements: Variolink N (VAR; Vivadent), RelyX U200 (RXU; 3M ESPE), and Panavia F2 (PAN; Kuraray). The μTBS values were compared between groups by 2-way analysis of variance and the post hoc Tamhane test (α = 0.05).
Results
Restorative materials and resin cements significantly influenced µTBS (p < 0.05). In the GRA group, the highest μTBS was found with RXU (27.40 ± 5.39 N) and the lowest with VAR (13.54 ± 6.04 N) (p < 0.05). Similar trends were observed in the ENA group. In the LAV group, the highest μTBS was observed with VAR (27.45 ± 5.84 N) and the lowest with PAN (10.67 ± 4.37 N) (p < 0.05). PAN had comparable results to those of ENA and GRA, whereas the μTBS values were significantly lower with LAV (p = 0.001). The highest bond strength of RXU was found with GRA (27.40 ± 5.39 N, p = 0.001). PAN showed the lowest µTBS with LAV (10.67 ± 4.37 N; p < 0.001).
Conclusions
When applied according to the manufacturers' recommendations, the µTBS of polymer-ceramic CAD/CAM materials and indirect composites is influenced by the luting cements.

24 View
0 Download

First
Prev
Page of 1
Next
Last

Search