The Experts below are selected from a list of 216 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Andrew Sandham - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Adhesive properties of Bonded orthodontic retainers to enamel: stainless steel wire vs fiber-reinforced composites.
    Journal of Adhesive Dentistry, 2009
    Co-Authors: Dave Lie Sam Foek, Mutlu Özcan, Eliza Krebs, Andrew Sandham
    Abstract:

    PURPOSE: The objectives of this study were to compare the Bond Strength of a stainless steel orthodontic wire vs various fiber-reinforced composites (FRC) used as orthodontic retainers on enamel, analyze the failure types after deBonding, and investigate the influence of different application procedures of stainless steel wires on Bond Strength. Materials AND METHODS: Caries-free, intact human mandibular incisors (N = 80, n = 10 per group) were selected and randomly distributed into 8 groups. After etching with 37% H3PO4 for 30 s, rinsing and drying, Bonding agent (Stick Resin) was applied and light polymerized. Then one of the following FRC Materials was applied on the flowable composite (Stick Flow) using standard molds: group 1: Angelus Fibrex Ribbon; group 2: DentaPreg Splint; group 3: ever-Stick Ortho; group 4: RibBond. In group 5, Quad Cat Wire was applied in the same manner as in FRC groups. In group 6, after applying Bonding agent (Stick Resin), Quad Cat Wire was placed directly on the tooth surface and covered with Stick Flow composite. In group 7, after Bonding agent (HelioBond) was applied, Quad Cat Wire was placed directly on the tooth surface and covered with Tetric Flow composite. In group 8, after applying Bonding agent (HelioBond) and polymerization, Tetric Flow composite was applied, not polymerized, and Quad Cat Wire was placed and covered with Tetric Flow again. Specimens were thermocycled for 6000 cycles between 5 degrees C and 55 degrees C and loaded in a universal testing machine under shear stress (crosshead speed: 1 mm/min) until deBonding occurred. The failure sites were examined under an optical light microscope. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and the Tukey-Kramer adjustment test (alpha = 0.05). RESULTS: Significant differences were found between the groups (p = 0.0011) (ANOVA). Bond Strength results did not significantly differ either between the FRC groups (groups 1 to 4) (6.1 +/- 2.5 to 8.4 +/- 3.7 MPa) (p > 0.05) or the wire groups (groups 5 to 8) (10.6 +/- 3.8 to 14 +/- 6.7 MPa) (p > 0.05). Failure types varied within the FRC groups, but mainly composite was found left adhered on the enamel surface at varying degrees. In the stainless steel wire groups, when the retainer was applied onto the Bonding agent and then covered with flowable resin, partially attached composite on the enamel was often found after deBonding. When the wires were embedded in the flowable composite, the HelioBond group (group 8) showed more adhesive failures between the enamel and the composite compared to group 5, where the Bonding agent was Stick Resin. CONCLUSION: Regardless of their application mode, stainless steel orthodontic Bonded retainers delivered higher Bond Strengths than those of fiber retainers. The differences were statistically significant compared to those of Angelus Fibrex Ribbon and DentaPreg Splint.

  • adhesive properties of Bonded orthodontic retainers to enamel stainless steel wire vs fiber reinforced composites
    Journal of Adhesive Dentistry, 2009
    Co-Authors: Dave Lie Sam Foek, Mutlu Özcan, Eliza Krebs, Andrew Sandham
    Abstract:

    Purpose: The objectives of this study were to compare the Bond Strength of a stainless steel orthodontic wire vs various fiber-reinforced composites (FRC) used as orthodontic retainers on enamel, analyze the failure types after deBonding, and investigate the influence of different application procedures of stainless steel wires on Bond Strength. Materials and Methods: Caries-free, intact human mandibular incisors (N = 80, n = 10 per group) were selected and randomly distributed into 8 groups. After etching with 37% H3PO4 for 30 s, rinsing and drying, Bonding agent (Stick Resin) was applied and light polymerized. Then one of the following FRC Materials was applied on the flowable composite (Stick Flow) using standard molds: group 1: Angelus Fibrex Ribbon; group 2: DentaPreg Splint; group 3: ever- Stick Ortho; group 4: RibBond. In group 5, Quad Cat Wire was applied in the same manner as in FRC groups. In group 6, after applying Bonding agent (Stick Resin), Quad Cat Wire was placed directly on the tooth surface and covered with Stick Flow composite. In group 7, after Bonding agent (HelioBond) was applied, Quad Cat Wire was placed directly on the tooth surface and covered with Tetric Flow composite. In group 8, after applying Bonding agent (HelioBond) and polymerization, Tetric Flow composite was applied, not polymerized, and Quad Cat Wire was placed and covered with Tetric Flow again. Specimens were thermocycled for 6000 cycles between 5°C and 55°C and loaded in a universal testing machine under shear stress (crosshead speed: 1 mm/min) until deBonding occurred. The failure sites were examined under an optical light microscope. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and the Tukey-Kramer adjustment test (α = 0.05). Results: Significant differences were found between the groups (p = 0.0011) (ANOVA). Bond Strength results did not significantly differ either between the FRC groups (groups 1 to 4) (6.1 ± 2.5 to 8.4 ± 3.7 MPa) (p > 0.05) or the wire groups (groups 5 to 8) (10.6 ± 3.8 to 14 ± 6.7 MPa) (p > 0.05). Failure types varied within the FRC groups, but mainly composite was found left adhered on the enamel surface at varying degrees. In the stainless steel wire groups, when the retainer was applied onto the Bonding agent and then covered with flowable resin, partially attached composite on the enamel was often found after deBonding. When the wires were embedded in the flowable composite, the HelioBond group (group 8) showed more adhesive failures between the enamel and the composite compared to group 5, where the Bonding agent was Stick Resin. Conclusion: Regardless of their application mode, stainless steel orthodontic Bonded retainers delivered higher Bond Strengths than those of fiber retainers. The differences were statistically significant compared to those of Angelus Fibrex Ribbon and DentaPreg Splint.

R Indira - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • evaluation of the effect of surface moisture on dentinal tensile Bond Strength to dentine adhesive an in vitro study
    Journal of Conservative Dentistry, 2010
    Co-Authors: Thumu Jayaprakash, M R Srinivasan, R Indira
    Abstract:

    Aim : To evaluate the effect of surface moisture on dentinal tensile Bond Strength. Materials and Methods : Forty freshly extracted caries free, unrestored human mandibular molars were selected. The occlusal surfaces of each tooth were ground to prepare flat dentin surfaces at a depth of 1.5 mm. Following acid etching with 37% phosphoric acid for 15 sec, they were randomly grouped, with ten specimens in each: Group I - Over wet, Group II - Blot dry, Group III- One second dry, Group IV- Over dry. Each group was treated with a single Bond adhesive system (3M ESPE) as per manufacturer's instructions. Blocks or cylinders of composite resin were built up using Teflon mould and cured. Tensile Bond Strengths were tested using Instron universal testing machine. The results were statistically analyzed. Results : The mean tensile Bond Strength values of group II, Blot dry was highest and statistically significant ( P <0.001). Conclusion : After acid etching and rinsing blot drying provided consistently better Bond Strength.

Dave Lie Sam Foek - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Adhesive properties of Bonded orthodontic retainers to enamel: stainless steel wire vs fiber-reinforced composites.
    Journal of Adhesive Dentistry, 2009
    Co-Authors: Dave Lie Sam Foek, Mutlu Özcan, Eliza Krebs, Andrew Sandham
    Abstract:

    PURPOSE: The objectives of this study were to compare the Bond Strength of a stainless steel orthodontic wire vs various fiber-reinforced composites (FRC) used as orthodontic retainers on enamel, analyze the failure types after deBonding, and investigate the influence of different application procedures of stainless steel wires on Bond Strength. Materials AND METHODS: Caries-free, intact human mandibular incisors (N = 80, n = 10 per group) were selected and randomly distributed into 8 groups. After etching with 37% H3PO4 for 30 s, rinsing and drying, Bonding agent (Stick Resin) was applied and light polymerized. Then one of the following FRC Materials was applied on the flowable composite (Stick Flow) using standard molds: group 1: Angelus Fibrex Ribbon; group 2: DentaPreg Splint; group 3: ever-Stick Ortho; group 4: RibBond. In group 5, Quad Cat Wire was applied in the same manner as in FRC groups. In group 6, after applying Bonding agent (Stick Resin), Quad Cat Wire was placed directly on the tooth surface and covered with Stick Flow composite. In group 7, after Bonding agent (HelioBond) was applied, Quad Cat Wire was placed directly on the tooth surface and covered with Tetric Flow composite. In group 8, after applying Bonding agent (HelioBond) and polymerization, Tetric Flow composite was applied, not polymerized, and Quad Cat Wire was placed and covered with Tetric Flow again. Specimens were thermocycled for 6000 cycles between 5 degrees C and 55 degrees C and loaded in a universal testing machine under shear stress (crosshead speed: 1 mm/min) until deBonding occurred. The failure sites were examined under an optical light microscope. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and the Tukey-Kramer adjustment test (alpha = 0.05). RESULTS: Significant differences were found between the groups (p = 0.0011) (ANOVA). Bond Strength results did not significantly differ either between the FRC groups (groups 1 to 4) (6.1 +/- 2.5 to 8.4 +/- 3.7 MPa) (p > 0.05) or the wire groups (groups 5 to 8) (10.6 +/- 3.8 to 14 +/- 6.7 MPa) (p > 0.05). Failure types varied within the FRC groups, but mainly composite was found left adhered on the enamel surface at varying degrees. In the stainless steel wire groups, when the retainer was applied onto the Bonding agent and then covered with flowable resin, partially attached composite on the enamel was often found after deBonding. When the wires were embedded in the flowable composite, the HelioBond group (group 8) showed more adhesive failures between the enamel and the composite compared to group 5, where the Bonding agent was Stick Resin. CONCLUSION: Regardless of their application mode, stainless steel orthodontic Bonded retainers delivered higher Bond Strengths than those of fiber retainers. The differences were statistically significant compared to those of Angelus Fibrex Ribbon and DentaPreg Splint.

  • adhesive properties of Bonded orthodontic retainers to enamel stainless steel wire vs fiber reinforced composites
    Journal of Adhesive Dentistry, 2009
    Co-Authors: Dave Lie Sam Foek, Mutlu Özcan, Eliza Krebs, Andrew Sandham
    Abstract:

    Purpose: The objectives of this study were to compare the Bond Strength of a stainless steel orthodontic wire vs various fiber-reinforced composites (FRC) used as orthodontic retainers on enamel, analyze the failure types after deBonding, and investigate the influence of different application procedures of stainless steel wires on Bond Strength. Materials and Methods: Caries-free, intact human mandibular incisors (N = 80, n = 10 per group) were selected and randomly distributed into 8 groups. After etching with 37% H3PO4 for 30 s, rinsing and drying, Bonding agent (Stick Resin) was applied and light polymerized. Then one of the following FRC Materials was applied on the flowable composite (Stick Flow) using standard molds: group 1: Angelus Fibrex Ribbon; group 2: DentaPreg Splint; group 3: ever- Stick Ortho; group 4: RibBond. In group 5, Quad Cat Wire was applied in the same manner as in FRC groups. In group 6, after applying Bonding agent (Stick Resin), Quad Cat Wire was placed directly on the tooth surface and covered with Stick Flow composite. In group 7, after Bonding agent (HelioBond) was applied, Quad Cat Wire was placed directly on the tooth surface and covered with Tetric Flow composite. In group 8, after applying Bonding agent (HelioBond) and polymerization, Tetric Flow composite was applied, not polymerized, and Quad Cat Wire was placed and covered with Tetric Flow again. Specimens were thermocycled for 6000 cycles between 5°C and 55°C and loaded in a universal testing machine under shear stress (crosshead speed: 1 mm/min) until deBonding occurred. The failure sites were examined under an optical light microscope. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and the Tukey-Kramer adjustment test (α = 0.05). Results: Significant differences were found between the groups (p = 0.0011) (ANOVA). Bond Strength results did not significantly differ either between the FRC groups (groups 1 to 4) (6.1 ± 2.5 to 8.4 ± 3.7 MPa) (p > 0.05) or the wire groups (groups 5 to 8) (10.6 ± 3.8 to 14 ± 6.7 MPa) (p > 0.05). Failure types varied within the FRC groups, but mainly composite was found left adhered on the enamel surface at varying degrees. In the stainless steel wire groups, when the retainer was applied onto the Bonding agent and then covered with flowable resin, partially attached composite on the enamel was often found after deBonding. When the wires were embedded in the flowable composite, the HelioBond group (group 8) showed more adhesive failures between the enamel and the composite compared to group 5, where the Bonding agent was Stick Resin. Conclusion: Regardless of their application mode, stainless steel orthodontic Bonded retainers delivered higher Bond Strengths than those of fiber retainers. The differences were statistically significant compared to those of Angelus Fibrex Ribbon and DentaPreg Splint.

Mutlu Özcan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Opaque Layer Firing Temperature and Aging Effect on the Flexural Strength of Ceramic Fused to Cobalt-Chromium Alloy
    Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists, 2010
    Co-Authors: Luis Gustavo Oliveira De Vasconcellos, Rodrigo Othavio De Assuncao E Souza, Geraldo Henrique Leao Lombardo, Marco Antonio Bottino, Leonardo Buso, Lafayette Nogueira Júnior, Mutlu Özcan
    Abstract:

    PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of the opaque layer firing temperature and mechanical and thermal cycling on the flexural Strength of a ceramic fused to commercial cobalt-chromium alloy (Co-Cr). The hypotheses were that higher opaque layer temperatures increase the metal/ceramic Bond Strength and that aging reduces the Bond Strength. Materials AND METHODS: Metallic frameworks (25 x 3 x 0.5 mm(3); ISO 9693) (N = 60) were cast in Co-Cr and airborne-particle abraded (Al(2)O(3): 150 mum) at the central area of the frameworks (8 x 3 mm(2)) and divided into three groups (N = 20), according to the opaque layer firing temperature: Gr1 (control)-900 degrees C; Gr2-950 degrees C; Gr3-1000 degrees C. The opaque ceramic (Opaque, Vita Zahnfabrick, Bad Sackingen, Germany) was applied, and the glass ceramic (Vita Omega 900, Vita Zahnfabrick) was fired onto it (thickness: 1 mm). While half the specimens from each group were randomly tested without aging (water storage: 37 degrees C/24 hours), the other half were mechanically loaded (20,000 cycles; 50 N load; distilled water at 37 degrees C) and thermocycled (3000 cycles; 5 degrees C to 55 degrees C, dwell time: 30 seconds). After the flexural Strength test, failure types were noted. The data were analyzed using 2-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (alpha= 0.05). RESULTS: Gr2 (19.41 +/- 5.5 N) and Gr3 (20.6 +/- 5 N) presented higher values than Gr1 (13.3 +/- 1.6 N) (p= 0.001). Mechanical and thermal cycling did not significantly influence the mean flexural Strength values (p > 0.05). Increasing the opaque layer firing temperature improved the flexural Bond Strength values (p < 0.05). The hypotheses were partially accepted. CONCLUSION: Increasing of the opaque layer firing temperature improved the flexural Bond Strength between ceramic fused to Co-Cr alloy.

  • Adhesive properties of Bonded orthodontic retainers to enamel: stainless steel wire vs fiber-reinforced composites.
    Journal of Adhesive Dentistry, 2009
    Co-Authors: Dave Lie Sam Foek, Mutlu Özcan, Eliza Krebs, Andrew Sandham
    Abstract:

    PURPOSE: The objectives of this study were to compare the Bond Strength of a stainless steel orthodontic wire vs various fiber-reinforced composites (FRC) used as orthodontic retainers on enamel, analyze the failure types after deBonding, and investigate the influence of different application procedures of stainless steel wires on Bond Strength. Materials AND METHODS: Caries-free, intact human mandibular incisors (N = 80, n = 10 per group) were selected and randomly distributed into 8 groups. After etching with 37% H3PO4 for 30 s, rinsing and drying, Bonding agent (Stick Resin) was applied and light polymerized. Then one of the following FRC Materials was applied on the flowable composite (Stick Flow) using standard molds: group 1: Angelus Fibrex Ribbon; group 2: DentaPreg Splint; group 3: ever-Stick Ortho; group 4: RibBond. In group 5, Quad Cat Wire was applied in the same manner as in FRC groups. In group 6, after applying Bonding agent (Stick Resin), Quad Cat Wire was placed directly on the tooth surface and covered with Stick Flow composite. In group 7, after Bonding agent (HelioBond) was applied, Quad Cat Wire was placed directly on the tooth surface and covered with Tetric Flow composite. In group 8, after applying Bonding agent (HelioBond) and polymerization, Tetric Flow composite was applied, not polymerized, and Quad Cat Wire was placed and covered with Tetric Flow again. Specimens were thermocycled for 6000 cycles between 5 degrees C and 55 degrees C and loaded in a universal testing machine under shear stress (crosshead speed: 1 mm/min) until deBonding occurred. The failure sites were examined under an optical light microscope. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and the Tukey-Kramer adjustment test (alpha = 0.05). RESULTS: Significant differences were found between the groups (p = 0.0011) (ANOVA). Bond Strength results did not significantly differ either between the FRC groups (groups 1 to 4) (6.1 +/- 2.5 to 8.4 +/- 3.7 MPa) (p > 0.05) or the wire groups (groups 5 to 8) (10.6 +/- 3.8 to 14 +/- 6.7 MPa) (p > 0.05). Failure types varied within the FRC groups, but mainly composite was found left adhered on the enamel surface at varying degrees. In the stainless steel wire groups, when the retainer was applied onto the Bonding agent and then covered with flowable resin, partially attached composite on the enamel was often found after deBonding. When the wires were embedded in the flowable composite, the HelioBond group (group 8) showed more adhesive failures between the enamel and the composite compared to group 5, where the Bonding agent was Stick Resin. CONCLUSION: Regardless of their application mode, stainless steel orthodontic Bonded retainers delivered higher Bond Strengths than those of fiber retainers. The differences were statistically significant compared to those of Angelus Fibrex Ribbon and DentaPreg Splint.

  • adhesive properties of Bonded orthodontic retainers to enamel stainless steel wire vs fiber reinforced composites
    Journal of Adhesive Dentistry, 2009
    Co-Authors: Dave Lie Sam Foek, Mutlu Özcan, Eliza Krebs, Andrew Sandham
    Abstract:

    Purpose: The objectives of this study were to compare the Bond Strength of a stainless steel orthodontic wire vs various fiber-reinforced composites (FRC) used as orthodontic retainers on enamel, analyze the failure types after deBonding, and investigate the influence of different application procedures of stainless steel wires on Bond Strength. Materials and Methods: Caries-free, intact human mandibular incisors (N = 80, n = 10 per group) were selected and randomly distributed into 8 groups. After etching with 37% H3PO4 for 30 s, rinsing and drying, Bonding agent (Stick Resin) was applied and light polymerized. Then one of the following FRC Materials was applied on the flowable composite (Stick Flow) using standard molds: group 1: Angelus Fibrex Ribbon; group 2: DentaPreg Splint; group 3: ever- Stick Ortho; group 4: RibBond. In group 5, Quad Cat Wire was applied in the same manner as in FRC groups. In group 6, after applying Bonding agent (Stick Resin), Quad Cat Wire was placed directly on the tooth surface and covered with Stick Flow composite. In group 7, after Bonding agent (HelioBond) was applied, Quad Cat Wire was placed directly on the tooth surface and covered with Tetric Flow composite. In group 8, after applying Bonding agent (HelioBond) and polymerization, Tetric Flow composite was applied, not polymerized, and Quad Cat Wire was placed and covered with Tetric Flow again. Specimens were thermocycled for 6000 cycles between 5°C and 55°C and loaded in a universal testing machine under shear stress (crosshead speed: 1 mm/min) until deBonding occurred. The failure sites were examined under an optical light microscope. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and the Tukey-Kramer adjustment test (α = 0.05). Results: Significant differences were found between the groups (p = 0.0011) (ANOVA). Bond Strength results did not significantly differ either between the FRC groups (groups 1 to 4) (6.1 ± 2.5 to 8.4 ± 3.7 MPa) (p > 0.05) or the wire groups (groups 5 to 8) (10.6 ± 3.8 to 14 ± 6.7 MPa) (p > 0.05). Failure types varied within the FRC groups, but mainly composite was found left adhered on the enamel surface at varying degrees. In the stainless steel wire groups, when the retainer was applied onto the Bonding agent and then covered with flowable resin, partially attached composite on the enamel was often found after deBonding. When the wires were embedded in the flowable composite, the HelioBond group (group 8) showed more adhesive failures between the enamel and the composite compared to group 5, where the Bonding agent was Stick Resin. Conclusion: Regardless of their application mode, stainless steel orthodontic Bonded retainers delivered higher Bond Strengths than those of fiber retainers. The differences were statistically significant compared to those of Angelus Fibrex Ribbon and DentaPreg Splint.

Sara A Alfadda - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • effect of alumina particle size on the Bond Strength between autopolymerized acrylic resin and commercially pure titanium
    Journal of Prosthodontics, 2019
    Co-Authors: Sara A Alfadda
    Abstract:

    Purpose To address the following null hypothesis: when the Rocatec Bonding system is used, the various sizes of aluminum oxide particles used to roughen the surface area of the commercially pure (CP) titanium prior to Bonding to autopolymerized resin have no effect on the average shear Bond Strength. Materials and Methods One hundred specimens were randomly allocated to five equally sized groups: Ti-no air abrasion (group A), Ti-air-abraded with 50 μm (group B), Ti-110 μm (group C), Ti-250 μm (group D), and Co-Cr-50 μm (group E) grain-size aluminum oxide. Rocatec Plus tribochemical coating was applied to all of the specimens, followed by a RelyX primer and Sinfonyopaquer. Autopolymerized denture base resin was then Bonded to the treated titanium surfaces. All specimens underwent thermocycling (10,000 cycles), shear Bond testing, and mode of failure examination under stereoscopic microscopy. Results The average Bond Strength of group D (250 μm) was significantly different compared to all other groups, except group C (p = 0.057, trending significance). The average Bond Strength of group D was substantially higher than that in the other groups (p < 0.01). The weakest Bond was observed when the specimens did not receive any air abrasion (group A). Maximum load (N) showed the same significant results as the shear Bond Strength at maximum load (MPa). The average extension at maximum load (mm) and the time at maximum load(s) for group A were significantly different than that of all other groups. Group A had lower average values than any other group (p = 0.003). More cohesive and mixed, rather than adhesive, modes of failure were observed as the size of the aluminum oxide particles increased. Conclusion When the Rocatec system is used, using a combination of chemical and micromechanical adhesion is essential for the success of the Bond between the autopolymerized acrylic resin and CP Ti. The micromechanical interlock can be improved significantly when the Ti surface is air abraded with larger particles (250 μm) than the currently used alumina particle size.