Strengths of additions to composite or resin-modified glass-ionomer

Richard H. Sullivan, Robert Hatch, Daniel M. Stegall, Crisnicaw Veríssimo, Daranee Versluis, Antheunis Versluis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives Adding a new layer of material to cured resin-based composite (RBC) or resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) restorations is necessary in dental practice. This study investigated strengths of additions to the two materials. Material and methods Beam-shaped specimens were made from monolithic RBC or RMGI, or additions of RBC and RMGI onto RBC or RMGI half-bar substrates. For the additions, the substrates were left undisturbed or were ground with silicon carbide paper followed by the application of a self-etch adhesive. Sample size was 10. Flexural strengths were determined by a 4-point bending test in a universal testing machine. Results were statistically analyzed with one-way ANOVA followed by Student–Newman–Keuls post-hoc test (α=0.05). Results Flexural strength of the monolithic RBC (86.7±21.8 MPa) was significantly higher than RMGI (52.6±13.1 MPa). Addition of RBC to cured RBC significantly reduced flexural strength regardless of the substrate surface conditions (34.1±11.5–45.7±21.1 MPa). Addition of RMGI to cured RMGI did not significantly reduce flexural strength (36.2±8.4–52.7±25.2 MPa). Flexural strength of RBC added onto cured RMGI that was ground and bonded was the lowest (21.5±10.0 MPa). Most specimens from this group exhibited adhesive failure. Conclusions RBC/RBC additions reduced flexural strength whereas flexural strength of RMGI/RMGI additions was not significantly lower than its cohesive strength. RBC added onto RMGI in the sandwich restorative configuration had lowest failure strength.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)86-90
Number of pages5
JournalInternational Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives
Volume69
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2016

Fingerprint

Ionomers
Resins
Glass
Composite materials
Bending strength
glass ionomer
Composite Resins
Adhesives
Substrates

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Biomaterials
  • Chemical Engineering(all)
  • Polymers and Plastics

Cite this

Strengths of additions to composite or resin-modified glass-ionomer. / Sullivan, Richard H.; Hatch, Robert; Stegall, Daniel M.; Veríssimo, Crisnicaw; Versluis, Daranee; Versluis, Antheunis.

In: International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives, Vol. 69, 01.01.2016, p. 86-90.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{f60f7387b6c345bda01e3e81da3672ae,
title = "Strengths of additions to composite or resin-modified glass-ionomer",
abstract = "Objectives Adding a new layer of material to cured resin-based composite (RBC) or resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) restorations is necessary in dental practice. This study investigated strengths of additions to the two materials. Material and methods Beam-shaped specimens were made from monolithic RBC or RMGI, or additions of RBC and RMGI onto RBC or RMGI half-bar substrates. For the additions, the substrates were left undisturbed or were ground with silicon carbide paper followed by the application of a self-etch adhesive. Sample size was 10. Flexural strengths were determined by a 4-point bending test in a universal testing machine. Results were statistically analyzed with one-way ANOVA followed by Student–Newman–Keuls post-hoc test (α=0.05). Results Flexural strength of the monolithic RBC (86.7±21.8 MPa) was significantly higher than RMGI (52.6±13.1 MPa). Addition of RBC to cured RBC significantly reduced flexural strength regardless of the substrate surface conditions (34.1±11.5–45.7±21.1 MPa). Addition of RMGI to cured RMGI did not significantly reduce flexural strength (36.2±8.4–52.7±25.2 MPa). Flexural strength of RBC added onto cured RMGI that was ground and bonded was the lowest (21.5±10.0 MPa). Most specimens from this group exhibited adhesive failure. Conclusions RBC/RBC additions reduced flexural strength whereas flexural strength of RMGI/RMGI additions was not significantly lower than its cohesive strength. RBC added onto RMGI in the sandwich restorative configuration had lowest failure strength.",
author = "Sullivan, {Richard H.} and Robert Hatch and Stegall, {Daniel M.} and Crisnicaw Ver{\'i}ssimo and Daranee Versluis and Antheunis Versluis",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2016.03.017",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "69",
pages = "86--90",
journal = "International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives",
issn = "0143-7496",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Strengths of additions to composite or resin-modified glass-ionomer

AU - Sullivan, Richard H.

AU - Hatch, Robert

AU - Stegall, Daniel M.

AU - Veríssimo, Crisnicaw

AU - Versluis, Daranee

AU - Versluis, Antheunis

PY - 2016/1/1

Y1 - 2016/1/1

N2 - Objectives Adding a new layer of material to cured resin-based composite (RBC) or resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) restorations is necessary in dental practice. This study investigated strengths of additions to the two materials. Material and methods Beam-shaped specimens were made from monolithic RBC or RMGI, or additions of RBC and RMGI onto RBC or RMGI half-bar substrates. For the additions, the substrates were left undisturbed or were ground with silicon carbide paper followed by the application of a self-etch adhesive. Sample size was 10. Flexural strengths were determined by a 4-point bending test in a universal testing machine. Results were statistically analyzed with one-way ANOVA followed by Student–Newman–Keuls post-hoc test (α=0.05). Results Flexural strength of the monolithic RBC (86.7±21.8 MPa) was significantly higher than RMGI (52.6±13.1 MPa). Addition of RBC to cured RBC significantly reduced flexural strength regardless of the substrate surface conditions (34.1±11.5–45.7±21.1 MPa). Addition of RMGI to cured RMGI did not significantly reduce flexural strength (36.2±8.4–52.7±25.2 MPa). Flexural strength of RBC added onto cured RMGI that was ground and bonded was the lowest (21.5±10.0 MPa). Most specimens from this group exhibited adhesive failure. Conclusions RBC/RBC additions reduced flexural strength whereas flexural strength of RMGI/RMGI additions was not significantly lower than its cohesive strength. RBC added onto RMGI in the sandwich restorative configuration had lowest failure strength.

AB - Objectives Adding a new layer of material to cured resin-based composite (RBC) or resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) restorations is necessary in dental practice. This study investigated strengths of additions to the two materials. Material and methods Beam-shaped specimens were made from monolithic RBC or RMGI, or additions of RBC and RMGI onto RBC or RMGI half-bar substrates. For the additions, the substrates were left undisturbed or were ground with silicon carbide paper followed by the application of a self-etch adhesive. Sample size was 10. Flexural strengths were determined by a 4-point bending test in a universal testing machine. Results were statistically analyzed with one-way ANOVA followed by Student–Newman–Keuls post-hoc test (α=0.05). Results Flexural strength of the monolithic RBC (86.7±21.8 MPa) was significantly higher than RMGI (52.6±13.1 MPa). Addition of RBC to cured RBC significantly reduced flexural strength regardless of the substrate surface conditions (34.1±11.5–45.7±21.1 MPa). Addition of RMGI to cured RMGI did not significantly reduce flexural strength (36.2±8.4–52.7±25.2 MPa). Flexural strength of RBC added onto cured RMGI that was ground and bonded was the lowest (21.5±10.0 MPa). Most specimens from this group exhibited adhesive failure. Conclusions RBC/RBC additions reduced flexural strength whereas flexural strength of RMGI/RMGI additions was not significantly lower than its cohesive strength. RBC added onto RMGI in the sandwich restorative configuration had lowest failure strength.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84962081595&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84962081595&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2016.03.017

DO - 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2016.03.017

M3 - Article

VL - 69

SP - 86

EP - 90

JO - International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives

JF - International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives

SN - 0143-7496

ER -