Comparative Evaluation Of Resistance To Fracture Of Endodontically Treated Maxillary Premolars Restored With Three Different Generations Of  Dentin Bonding Systems:  An Vitro Study: Comparative Evaluation Of Resistance To Fracture Of Endodontically Treated Maxillary Premolars

Surekha Puri Bhat; Prashant Nahar; Prabhuraj Kambaya; Mandeepsinh Gohil; Avani Rijhwani

Authors

Surekha Puri Bhat Professor And Head, Department Of Conservative And Endodontics, Pacific Dental College And Research Center, Udaipur
Prashant Nahar Professor ,Oral Medicine And Radiology, Pacific Dental College And Research Center, Udaipur
Prabhuraj Kambaya Professor And Head .Dept Of Ortho Dontics, Pacific Dental College And Research Center, Udaipur
Mandeepsinh Gohil Senior lecturer, department of Public Health Dentistry, CODS,Amargadh, Gujarat
Avani Rijhwani Senior lecturer, department of Public Health Dentistry, CODS,Amargadh, Gujarat

Keywords:

shear bond strength, fith generation, sixth and seventh generation dentin bonding agents, fractured endodonticaly treated tooth

Abstract

Background and objectives: To evaluate and compare the shear bond strength of fifth (total etch) generation, sixth (two-step, self etch adhesive) generation and seventh (one step, self etch adhesive) generation dentin bonding agents. Methodology: Group A(control group), B(control group), and C(experimental group) were made. In all the groups, except group- A, endodontic access cavities were prepared. The apical preparation was finished with F1 and F2 Protaper universal files followed by obturation. Excess GP coronal to the orifices was removed and condensed using heated hand pluggers. Standardized Class 2 MOD cavities were prepared for all groups except for the group A. After cavity preparation, all the teeth of the experimental group were then considered for the final coronal restorations. Results: The mean Shear Bond Strength obtained by 5th generation (group C) is highest, followed by 6th generation (group D) and 7th generation (group E). Conclusion: this study shows that the easier to use adhesive systems are inferior to multi-step adhesive systems. [Rijhwani A, Natl J Integr Res Med, 2019; 10(1):6-10]

References

1. Hansen EK, Asmussen E .Invivo fractures of endodontically treated posterior teeth restored with bonded resin.Endo Dent Traumatol 1990; 6: 218-225.
2. Helfer AR, Melnick S, Schilder H .Determination of the moisture content of vital and pulpless teeth. Orag Surg 1972; 34: 667-670.
3. Perdigao J, Swift EJ, Denehy GE, Wefel JS, Donly KJ.Invitro bond strengths and SEM evaluation of dentin bonding systems to different dentin substrates. J Dent Res 1994; 73 (1) : 44-55.
4. C.P. Ernst, M.Holzmeier. In Vitro Shear Bond Strength of Self-etching Adhesives in Comparison to 4th and 5th Generation Adhesives .Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 2004; 6:293-299
5. Gelfand M. Goldman M, Sunderman EJ. Effect of complete veneer crows on the compressive strength of endodontically treated posterior teeth.J Prosthet Dent 1984; 52: 635-638.
6. Sorenson JA, Martionoff JT.Intracornal reinforcement and coronal coverage â€“ A study of endodontically treated teeth.J Prosthet Dent 1984; 51: 780-784.
7. K. M. Soderholm et al. Shear Bond Strength of One 4th and Two 7th Generation Bonding Agents when used by Operators with Different Bon ding Experience Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 2005; 7:57-60.
8. Craig RG. Restorative Dental Material, 8th ed. St.Louis CV Mosby Company 1989; 262.
9. N. Pecora et al. Comparison of Shear Bond Strength relative to two testing devices Journal Of Prosthetic Dentistry 2002; 88;511-555.
10. Trope M, Langer and Maltz. Resistance to fracture of restored endodontically treated premolars.Endo Dent Tramatol 1986; 2: 35-38.
11. Reeh ES, Douglass WH, Messar HH. Stiffness of endodontically treated teeth related to restorative techniques. J Dent Res 1989; 68: 1540-1544.
12. R Atash et al. Bond strength of eight contemporary adhesives to enamel and dentin: an invitro study on bovine primary teeth International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 2005;15:264-273.
13. T.Watanabe. Effect of Prior Acid Etching on Bonding Durability of Single Step Adhesives .Operative Dentistry,2008;33-4;426-433
14. .JR Gallo et al. Shear Bond Strength of Four Filled Dentin Bonding Systems.Operative Dentistry, 2001;26-1;44-47.
15. Hernandez R, Trope M, Bader S, Boston D :Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated premolars restored with new generation dentin bonding systems.Int Endod J 1994; 27: 281-284.
16. Trope M, Tronstand L: Resistant to fracture of endodontically treated premolars restored with acid etch composite resin and glass ionomer cement.J Endod 1991; 17(6) : 237-259.
17. .J Perdigao .Total Etch versus Self Etch adhesive JADA,Vol 134;December2003:1621-1629
18. GC Lopes, FC Marson . Composite Bond Strength to Enamel with Self-etching Primers Operative Dentistry, 2004; 29-4: 424-42.
19. C.Goracci et al.Micro tensile Bond Strength Of Self-etching Adhesives to Enamel and Dentin.Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 2004;6:313-318.
20. Nigel King. Conversion of One step to two-step Self Etch adhesives for improved efficacy and extended application.American Journal of Dentistry 2005;18:126-134.

Comparative Evaluation Of Resistance To Fracture Of Endodontically Treated Maxillary Premolars Restored With Three Different Generations Of Dentin Bonding Systems: An Vitro Study