Sterilization and disinfection of dental burs.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Dental Instruments↗
Biomedical subjects
W W Barkmeier
Publications and source records attributed to W W Barkmeier.
A comparison of six enamel treatment procedures for sealant bonding.
This in-vitro study evaluated the effectiveness of six different enamel treatment procedures for bonding a dental sealant. Sixty extracted human molar teeth were separated into the following enamel treatment groups (10 teeth each): group 1 (control)-etched with 37% phosphoric acid; group 2-air polished (air abraded) with 45 microns particles of sodium bicarbonate; group 3-air abraded with 50 microns aluminum oxide particles; group 4-etched with 2.5% nitric acid; group 5-air abraded with sodium bicarbonate particles and etched with 37% phosphoric acid; and group 6-air abraded with 50-microns aluminum oxide particles and etched with 37% phosphoric acid. The enamel treatment procedures were accomplished on intact mesial or distal surfaces. Following the enamel treatment, a sealant was bonded to the surfaces using a plastic matrix technique. After 24 hr of water storage at 37 degrees C, the specimens were debonded using an Instron machine. The mean shear bond strengths (MPa) were as follows: group 1-9.19 +/- 1.34 MPa; group 2-2.03 +/- 1.67 MPa; group 3-1.50 +/- 0.93 MPa; group 4-4.99 +/- 1.26 MPa; group 5-11.61 +/- 4.51; and group 6-11.14 +/- 1.70 MPa. Statistical analysis using a one-way ANOVA and Scheffe F-test revealed no significant difference (P > 0.05) among groups 1,5, and 6. However, there was a significant difference (P < 0.05) between groups 1,5, and 6 and the other three groups (2,3, and 4). In conclusion, 37% phosphoric acid treatment of intact enamel, or a combination of air abrasion with sodium bicarbonate or aluminum oxide followed by phosphoric acid, provides significantly higher bond strengths of a sealant material than enamel conditioning with 2.5% nitric acid or air abrasion with sodium bicarbonate or aluminum oxide.
Acid Etching, Dental↗
Effects of dentin air abrasion with aluminum oxide and hydroxyapatite on adhesive bond strength.
Shear bond strengths to dentin were determined with six current-generation resin adhesive systems following air abrasion of the dentin surface with aluminum oxide and hydroxyapatite. In addition, scanning electron microscopy was used to examine the effects of air abrasive techniques and conditioners/primers on the dentin surfaces. Altering the dentin surface with air abrasion using aluminum oxide and hydroxyapatite did not enhance dentin bond strengths with current-generation adhesive systems. Air abrasion of dentin with aluminum oxide created more surface irregularity than hydroxyapatite. Dentin surfaces air abraded with aluminum oxide and the treated with conditioners that removed the smear layer appeared more irregular than flat ground dentin surfaces treated with the same conditioners.
Acid Etching, Dental↗
Shear bond strengths of composite to dentin using six dental adhesive systems.
The development of adhesive agents for bonding composite to dentin has rapidly evolved in recent years. It is postulated that dentin bond strengths in the range of 17 MPa are sufficient to resist the polymerization shrinkage of composite resins. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strengths of the following dentin adhesive systems: All-Bond 2 (Bisco), Imperva Bond (Shofu), Optibond (Kerr), Permagen (Ultradent), ProBond (Caulk/Dentsply), and Scotchbond Multi-Purpose (3M). Sixty human molars (10 per group) were mounted in phenolic rings, and the occlusal surfaces were flat ground in dentin to 600 grit. The prepared dentin bonding sites were treated according to the directions for each of the systems evaluated. A gelatin capsule technique was used to bond Bis-Fil composite cylinders to the teeth. The specimens were stored in water at 37 degrees C for 24 hours. Mean shear bond strengths were as follows: Scotchbond Multi-Purpose: 23.1 +/- 2.6 MPa, All-Bond 2: 21.4 +/- 7.8 MPa, Imperva Bond: 19.8 +/- 6.1 MPa, Optibond: 19.7 +/- 3.6 MPa, ProBond: 16.3 +/- 4.5 MPa, and Permagen: 16.2 +/- 3.0 MPa. There was not a significant difference (P<0.05) in the bond strengths of Scotchbond Multi-Purpose, All-Bond 2, Imperva Bond, and Optibond. The bond strengths of Scotchbond Multi-Purpose and All-Bond 2 were significantly greater (P<0.05) than ProBond and Permagen. Current-generation dentin adhesive systems have approached or exceeded the theoretical threshold value to resist contraction stresses during polymerization of resin materials.
Acid Etching, Dental↗
Laboratory evaluation of surface treatments for composite repair.
This laboratory study evaluated the strength of composite repairs using various surface treatment procedures. Roughening a previously cured composite surface, with either a diamond instrument or aluminum oxide air abrasion, yielded composite to composite repair strengths that were not significantly different (P > 0.05) than bonding composite to the air-inhibited layer of a cured composite. The bond strengths of composite repairs were slightly higher when using an unfilled bonding agent but not significantly different (P > 0.05) than the same repair techniques without the bonding agent.
Air↗
Three-year clinical evaluation of the Clearfil Liner Bond system.
Modern dental adhesive systems have improved the bond of restorative materials to mineralized tooth structures. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of composite restorations placed in abrasion and erosion lesions using the Clearfil Liner Bond dental adhesive system. Following ADA clinical guidelines for dentin and enamel adhesive materials, 62 facial class 5 smooth surface erosion or abrasion lesions with no undercuts and involving primarily root surfaces were restored in 25 adult male and female patients. The teeth were restored without preparations using Clearfil Liner Bond and Clearfil Photo Anterior composite resin. The clinical performance of the restorations was assessed by two examiners at baseline, 6 months, 1, 2, and 3 years using the following evaluative parameters: color match, marginal discoloration, and marginal integrity according to modified Ryge criteria; the presence or absence of recurrent decay; pre- and postoperative sensitivity; and restoration failure due to loss of retention or other causes. At the end of 3 years, four of the 55 restorations remaining in the study failed due to lack of retention (92.7% retention rate). The evaluations of the other clinical parameters demonstrated excellent performance by this system.
Adult↗