Comparative Study on Interface Fracture of 4th Generation 3-Steps Adhesive and 7th Generation Universal Adhesive.
FEM analysis
SEM investigation
SIFs
crack propagation
dental adhesives
interface
Journal
Materials (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 1996-1944
Titre abrégé: Materials (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101555929
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 Aug 2023
25 Aug 2023
Historique:
received:
26
07
2023
revised:
17
08
2023
accepted:
22
08
2023
medline:
9
9
2023
pubmed:
9
9
2023
entrez:
9
9
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The purpose of this paper is to compare the fracture behavior of interfaces obtained using fourth-generation and universal dental adhesives. The study relies on optic and SEM to evaluate the dentin-adhesive-restoration material interface of the samples and also on FEA simulation of fracture behavior. Specimen fabrication relied on 20 extracted teeth, in which class I cavities were created according to a protocol established based on the rules of minimally invasive therapy. For the direct adhesive technique, the adhesives used were: three-step All Bond, three-batch A and one-step Clearfil Universal Bond Quick-batch B. The restoration was performed with the same composite for both adhesives: Gradia direct posterior. The simulation used a 3D reconstructed molar on which geometric operations were performed to obtain an assembly that replicated a physical specimen. Material properties were applied to each component based on the information found in the literature. A simplified model for crack propagation was constructed, and using the fracture mechanics tool in Ansys 2019, the stress intensity factors that act at the crack tip of the adhesive interface were obtained. Mechanical simulation and microscopic investigation showed us how the interface of the dentine-adhesive-filling material performed in cases of both dental adhesives and for a certain loading condition. Important differences were identified among the adhesives, the fourth generation being superior to the fourth generation especially due to the separate steps in which the tooth surface was prepared for adhesion.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37687525
pii: ma16175834
doi: 10.3390/ma16175834
pmc: PMC10488864
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2004 Jul 15;70(1):56-65
pubmed: 15199584
Eur J Dent. 2010 Apr;4(2):223-32
pubmed: 20396457
Br Dent J. 2017 Mar 10;222(5):337-344
pubmed: 28281590
Hua Xi Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao. 1994 Dec;25(4):414-7
pubmed: 7744385
Int J Oral Sci. 2012 Jun;4(2):101-8
pubmed: 22699263
Materials (Basel). 2023 Apr 28;16(9):
pubmed: 37176339
Dent Mater. 2008 Mar;24(3):418-25
pubmed: 17697707
Dent Mater. 2010 Dec;26(12):1185-92
pubmed: 20932565
J Dent Res. 2008 Aug;87(8):710-9
pubmed: 18650540
J Prosthodont. 2018 Oct;27(8):741-747
pubmed: 27696615
Dent Mater. 2002 Jan;18(1):12-9
pubmed: 11740960
Ann Stomatol (Roma). 2017 Jul 03;8(1):1-17
pubmed: 28736601
Br Dent J. 2001 Aug 11;191(3):148-50
pubmed: 11523887
Materials (Basel). 2021 Aug 22;14(16):
pubmed: 34443268
Dent Mater. 2012 Jan;28(1):87-101
pubmed: 22192253
Biomed Res Int. 2019 Feb 04;2019:5109481
pubmed: 30863779
Dent Mater J. 2016;35(4):606-12
pubmed: 27477226
Dent Mater. 2010 Apr;26(4):337-44
pubmed: 20053434
J Appl Oral Sci. 2018 Nov 08;27:e20170449
pubmed: 30427472
Eur J Dent. 2022 Feb;16(1):153-160
pubmed: 34598293
Dent Mater. 2021 Mar;37(3):e109-e117
pubmed: 33248806
Dent Mater. 2015 Dec;31(12):1493-501
pubmed: 26518339
Int Dent J. 2023 Jun 27;:
pubmed: 37385864
Polymers (Basel). 2021 Mar 25;13(7):
pubmed: 33805907
Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2014 Jul;18(3):272-6
pubmed: 25992105
Dent Mater. 2016 Oct;32(10):e238-e250
pubmed: 27497744
J Dent Res. 1996 Jan;75(1):529-34
pubmed: 8655756
J Dent. 2023 May;132:104481
pubmed: 36918052
Dent Mater J. 2016 Dec 1;35(6):893-899
pubmed: 27680036
Oper Dent. 2010 Jan-Feb;35(1):112-9
pubmed: 20166418
Dent Update. 2013 Dec;40(10):840-4
pubmed: 24597029