Biomedical subjects

M Balkenhol

Publications and source records attributed to M Balkenhol.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2005

Two-year evaluation of restorations of a packable composite placed in UK general dental practices.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the clinical performance at two years of 100 Solitaire 2 restorations placed in five United Kingdom dental practices by members of a practice-based research group. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Restorations were assessed after two years by a trained evaluator and the dental practitioner who had placed the material, for anatomic form, marginal adaptation, surface roughness, gingival condition and the presence or absence of secondary caries. In addition, the patients completed a questionnaire requesting details of the comfort and performance of the Solitaire 2 restoration(s). RESULTS: A total of 88 (58 Class II and 30 Class I) restorations of Solitaire 2 placed in 49 patients (mean age 43 years) were assessed. Twelve restorations could not be evaluated because of patient unavailability for the dates of the examinations. Two Class II restorations (2%) had failed by the time of the two-year evaluation and the remaining 86 restorations were found to be intact with no secondary caries. A high percentage of optimal scores were recorded for anatomic form and surface roughness. The colour match of two restorations (2%) was recorded as an obvious mismatch, but otherwise no unacceptable scores were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: After two years of clinical service a high proportion (96%) of the Solitaire 2 restorations that were available for re-examination, placed in general dental practice settings, were found to be performing satisfactorily.

Adhesives↗

PubMed2000

Rewetting strategies for bonding to dry dentin with an acetone-based adhesive.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of rewetting agents on bonding to etched and air-dried dentin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For shear bond strength testing (SBS), the proximal surfaces of 90 molars were ground on wet SiC paper to prepare them for resin composite bonding with Gluma One Bond (Heraeus Kulzer, Germany). Dentin cavities were cut (Ø 3.5 mm, 1.5 mm deep) in 60 molars and restored with Gluma One Bond/Charisma for evaluation of the marginal performance (MGW). The adhesive was applied on acid-etched and rinsed dentin after the following pretreatment techniques: A: moist; B: 15 s air dried; C through F: 15 s air dried, followed by 30 s rewetting with C: water; D: 35% HEMA; E: Gluma Primer; F: 5% glutardialdehyde; G through J: as C through F, but followed by 15 s air drying. SBS data were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey's test, and MGW with Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-test (alpha = 0.05). RESULTS: Shear bond strengths of groups A and B were 20.3 and 1.1 MPa, respectively. The Tukey ranking of SBS results was [A=C=D=E] > [C=D=E] > [C=D=I] > H > [F=J] > [B=G]. Groups A, C, D, E, H, and I with 3 or 4 gap-free restorations each showed no differences in MGW (p > 0.05). In contrast, no gap-free specimens were found in groups B, F, G, or J, and marginal gaps were significantly larger (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Rewetting of dried dentin with water, 35% HEMA, or Gluma Primer resulted in effective bonding. Excessive drying after rewetting had no compromising effect on adhesion in the HEMA- and GLUMA-primed groups, whereas the water and glutardialdehyde-treated groups showed poor bonding.

Acetone↗

PubMed1999

Practitioner variability effects on dentin bonding with an acetone-based one-bottle adhesive.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of operator variability on the marginal performance of resin composite restorations bonded with an acetone-base one-bottle adhesive in standardized dentin preparations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five general practitioners were recruited for this trial. In the first group, each dentist received six extracted human teeth with dentin preparations (Ø 3.5 mm, 1.5 mm deep), cut in flatground proximal dentin, and original packages of Gluma One Bond adhesive and Charisma resin composite (Heraeus-Kulzer, Werheim, Germany) including instructions for use. For the second group, the operators were orally instructed, emphasizing the importance of the moist technique, before they received another six teeth for restoration with the same materials. Finally, a third group of six preparations was restored in order to evaluate a possible training effect. The restored teeth were stored in a hygrophor prior to removal of excess material and microscopic determination of the maximum marginal gap width (MGW). Statistical analyses were performed with the Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon tests at p < 0.05. RESULTS: Apart from two samples, preparation margins in the first test group showed gaps between 1 and 12 microns. In the second and third groups, 15 and 16 restorations were gap free, respectively. Significant interoperator variation was found in the first group only. Marginal performance of group 1 restorations was significantly inferior to groups 2 and 3, which were not different (p = 0.79). CONCLUSION: Application of the one-bottle adhesive is technique-sensitive and requires meticulous attention to the instructions.

Adhesives↗