دوره 14، شماره 1 - ( 12-1403 )
جلد 14 شماره 1 صفحات 6-1 |
برگشت به فهرست نسخه ها
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Talebabbasi F, Rezaei Y, Daneshpooy M, Ghasemi S. Effects of Different Adhesive Systems on the Bond Strength of Repaired Bulk-Fill Composites. J Emerg Health Care 2025; 14 (1) :1-6
URL: http://intjmi.com/article-1-1313-fa.html
URL: http://intjmi.com/article-1-1313-fa.html
Effects of Different Adhesive Systems on the Bond Strength of Repaired Bulk-Fill Composites. . 1403; 14 (1) :1-6
چکیده: (6 مشاهده)
Objectives: In most cases, the repair of existing dental restorations is preferred to changing the whole restoration. We designed a study to evaluate the effect of elective bonding systems on the result of bulk-fill composite repairs, which seems to be essential.
Materials and methods: Fifty-four samples of two types of bulk-fill composites: X-tra fil dental Bulk-fill composite and Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill composite, and three types of adhesive bonding 3M ESPE Scotchbond universal adhesive, G-Premio Bond, and ClearFil SE Bond, were used. The composite samples were placed in the mold, flattened by a glass slab, and then light-cured. The samples were stored in distilled water. Then they were thermocycled. The samples were divided into six groups (n = 9), and each composite was repaired with the same composite and different adhesive systems. The prepared samples were stored in distilled water once more. Then, the shear bond strength test was established using the universal test machine with a loading speed of 0.5 mm/min. The statistical data analysis was done with SPSS 17 software. (p<0.05)
Results: The results of the samples' independent T-test showed that there is no statistically significant difference between the mean bond strength of the two types of Bulk-Fill composites (p-value > 0.05). In addition, the results of the one-way ANOVA test showed that there is no statistically significant difference between the mean bond strengths of the three types of adhesive systems (p-value > 0.05).
Conclusions: In conclusion, the type of adhesive used has no significant effect on the repaired bulk-fill composite bond strength. Also, the type of bulk-fill composite has no significant effect on the bond strength.
Materials and methods: Fifty-four samples of two types of bulk-fill composites: X-tra fil dental Bulk-fill composite and Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill composite, and three types of adhesive bonding 3M ESPE Scotchbond universal adhesive, G-Premio Bond, and ClearFil SE Bond, were used. The composite samples were placed in the mold, flattened by a glass slab, and then light-cured. The samples were stored in distilled water. Then they were thermocycled. The samples were divided into six groups (n = 9), and each composite was repaired with the same composite and different adhesive systems. The prepared samples were stored in distilled water once more. Then, the shear bond strength test was established using the universal test machine with a loading speed of 0.5 mm/min. The statistical data analysis was done with SPSS 17 software. (p<0.05)
Results: The results of the samples' independent T-test showed that there is no statistically significant difference between the mean bond strength of the two types of Bulk-Fill composites (p-value > 0.05). In addition, the results of the one-way ANOVA test showed that there is no statistically significant difference between the mean bond strengths of the three types of adhesive systems (p-value > 0.05).
Conclusions: In conclusion, the type of adhesive used has no significant effect on the repaired bulk-fill composite bond strength. Also, the type of bulk-fill composite has no significant effect on the bond strength.
| بازنشر اطلاعات | |
 |
این مقاله تحت شرایط Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License قابل بازنشر است. |