PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Sillas Duarte

Publications and source records attributed to Sillas Duarte.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Scanning electron microscope analysis of internal adaptation of materials used for pulp protection under composite resin restorations.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the interfacial microgap with different materials used for pulp protection. The null hypothesis tested was that the combination of calcium hydroxide, resin-modified glass ionomer, and dentin adhesive used as pulp protection in composite restorations would not result in a greater axial gap than that obtained with hybridization only. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Standardized Class V preparations were performed in buccal and lingual surfaces of 60 caries-free, extracted human third molars. The prepared teeth were randomly assessed in six groups: (1) Single Bond (SB) (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA); (2) Life (LF) (Kerr Co., Romulus, MI, USA) + SB; (3) LF + Vitrebond (VT) (3M ESPE) + SB; (4) VT + SB; (5) SB + VT; (6) SB + VT + SB. They were restored with microhybrid composite resin Filtek Z250 (3M ESPE), according to the manufacturer's instructions. However, to groups 5 and 6, the dentin bonding adhesive was applied prior to the resin-modified glass ionomer. The specimens were then thermocycled, cross-sectioned through the center of the restoration, fixed, and processed for scanning electron microscopy. The specimens were mounted on stubs and sputter coated. The internal adaptation of the materials to the axial wall was analyzed under SEM with x1,000 magnification. RESULTS: The data obtained were analyzed with nonparametric tests (Kruskal-Wallis, p < or = .05). The null hypothesis was rejected. Calcium hydroxide and resin-modified glass ionomer applied alone or in conjunction with each other (p < .001) resulted in statistically wider microgaps than occurred when the dentin was only hybridized prior to the restoration.

Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate↗
PubMed2003

Evaluation of marginal microleakage in class II cavities: effect of microhybrid, flowable, and compactable resins.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of the present study was to evaluate the microleakage on the cementum/dentin and enamel surfaces in Class II restorations, using different kinds of resin composite (microhybrid, flowable, and compactable). METHOD AND MATERIALS: Forty human caries-free molars were extracted and selected. Eighty Class II standardized cavities were made in the cervical wall at the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) and at the mesial and distal surfaces. The teeth were divided into four groups: G1--adhesive system + microhybrid resin composite Z100; G2--adhesive system + compactable resin composite Prodigy Condensable; G3--adhesive system + flowable resin composite Revolution + Z100 resin composite; G4--adhesive system + Revolution fluid resin + compactable resin composite Prodigy Condensable. The adhesive system used in this study was Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus. The specimens were thermocycled in baths of 5 degrees C and 55 degrees C for 1,000 cycles and immersed in 50% silver nitrate solution. The specimens then were sectioned and evaluated on degree of dye penetration. RESULTS: The results were evaluated using the nonparametric Kruskall-Wallis test, which showed a statistically significant difference between groups G1 and G4, G2 and G4, and G3 and G4. CONCLUSIONS: None of the materials was able to eliminate the marginal microleakage at the cervical wall; the application of a low-viscosity resin composite combined with a compactable resin composite significantly decreased the microleakage.

Composite Resins↗
PubMed2003

Advances in dentin adhesion.

While bonding to enamel has been a dependable technique, bonding to dentin is still an overwhelming task--dentin is a naturally soaked organic tissue. The enamel bonding agents of the 1960s and 1970s progressively evolved into complex multibottle or universal adhesives in the early 1990s. These multibottle systems were formulated to bond to enamel, dentin, composite, amalgam, porcelain, and nonprecious metal. More recently, simplified dentin adhesives were introduced following one of two adhesion strategies: total-etch adhesives that include an acid gel to remove the smear layer and dissolve hydroxyapatite (generally 30% to 40% phosphoric acid for 15 to 30 seconds); and self-etching primers that treat the dentin and enamel with a non-rinsing solution of acidic monomers in water without removing the smear layer. Recent attempts to simplify the bonding procedure have led to the introduction of adhesives that do not use a separate acid-etch step and, therefore, do not etch enamel to the same depth as phosphoric acid-based dental adhesives.

Acid Etching, Dental↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Enamel bond strengths of pairs of adhesives from the same manufacturer.

Most manufacturers of dental adhesives have both a total-etch adhesive and a simplified self-etching adhesive available on the market. This study measured the enamel microtensile bond strengths of five pairs of enamel adhesives as a function of enamel roughness. The proximal surfaces of 25 extracted mandibular molars were sectioned with a diamond saw to obtain 50 enamel rectangles with an area of 8x4 mm2. The enamel rectangles were divided in two equal parts via a groove to obtain 4x4 mm2 squared bonding surfaces. One half was roughened with a coarse diamond bur under water for five seconds, while the other half was kept intact. The enamel surfaces were randomly assigned to 10 enamel adhesives grouped into five pairs. Each pair included one self-etch adhesive and one total-etch adhesive from the same manufacturer: Adper Prompt and Adper Single Bond (PLP and SB, 3M ESPE); AdheSE and Excite (ADH and EXC, Ivoclar Vivadent); OptiBond Solo Plus SE and OptiBond Solo Plus (OPTSE and OPT, Kerr); Tyrian SPE/One-Step Plus and One-Step (TYR and OST, BISCO, Inc); Xeno III and Prime&Bond NT (XEN and PBNT, Dentsply). The adhesives were applied according to the manufacturers' instructions. Buildups were constructed with Filtek Z250 (3M ESPE). The specimens were sectioned in sticks with a cross section of 0.8+/-0.2 mm2 and tested to failure in tension at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/minute. Two-way ANOVA followed by Duncan's post-hoc test at p<0.05 was computed. The highest mean bond strengths were obtained with total-etch adhesives. For "roughened enamel," three pairs of materials had statistically different means in which the total-etch adhesive resulted in statistically higher bond strengths (MPa) than the corresponding self-etch adhesive: EXC (36.6) > ADH (23.0) at p<0.026; OPT (34.5) > OPTSE (25.3) at p<0.028; PBNT (36.6) > XEN (19.5) at p<0.0001. For "intact enamel," four pairs of materials resulted in statistically different means: SB (31.7) > PLP (20.9) at p<0.049; EXC (37.9) > ADH (16.3) at p<0.0001; OST (30.1) > TYR (18.0); PBNT (43.8) > XEN (16.0) at p<0.0001. When the same adhesive was compared on intact vs roughened enamel, all the self-etch materials resulted in lower bond strengths on intact enamel, but this difference was only significant for TYR (p<0.042) and ADH (p<0.050). For total-etch materials, only OPT resulted in statistically lower bond strengths when applied on intact enamel p<0.011).

Acrylic Resins↗