The Experts below are selected from a list of 1863 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Ailin Mahdkhah - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Effect of rinsing time and surface contamination on the bond strength of Silorane-based and dimethacrylate-based composites to enamel.
Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2018Co-Authors: Farnoosh Fallahzadeh, Mohammad Atai, Shirin Ghasemi, Ailin MahdkhahAbstract:The aim of this study was to assess whether saliva contamination and rinsing time for 15, 30, and 60 seconds, affects the shear bond strength of Silorane and methacrylate-based composites to enamel. Two light cure resin, P60 (3M ESPE) and Filtek LS Silorane were tested. 120 sound premolars were randomly divided into four groups of 30 teeth based on composite type with or without saliva contamination after etching and rinsing. Each group was further divided into three subgroups according to their rinsing time. Then a cylinder of the composite was bonded to the enamel and Shear bond strength was assessed. To determine the failure mode, the bonded surfaces were then observed under SEM. In addition, the DC of each group was measured at pH levels of 4 and 7 using FTIR spectroscopy. The data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and post hoc analysis followed by Fisher's least significant difference. The bond strength of the non-contaminated methacrylate group was significantly higher than the other groups (p< 0.0001). In addition, there was no significant deference between the methacrylate subgroups. In the Silorane groups, the shear bond strength was higher in the rinsing time of 15 seconds. Failure pattern was mainly adhesive. The DC of the Methacrylates had no significant difference at pH 4 and pH 7, but was significantly higher than that of Siloranes (p< 0.0001). While the DC of the Siloranes at pH 4 was significantly higher than at pH 7 (p< 0.0001). Saliva contamination in both composites reduces bond strength. Increasing rinsing time in Methacrylates proves ineffective. In non-contaminated Siloranes, excessive rinsing time reduced bond strength. The best-recommended rinsing time for both composite is 15 seconds. Key words:Composite resins, Silorane composite resin, methacrylates, shear strength.
-
Effect of rinsing time and surface contamination on the bond strength of Silorane-based and dimethacrylate-based composites to enamel.
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry, 2018Co-Authors: Farnoosh Fallahzadeh, Mohammad Atai, Shirin Ghasemi, Ailin MahdkhahAbstract:Background The aim of this study was to assess whether saliva contamination and rinsing time for 15, 30, and 60 seconds, affects the shear bond strength of Silorane and methacrylate-based composites to enamel. Material and Methods Two light cure resin, P60 (3M ESPE) and Filtek LS Silorane were tested. 120 sound premolars were randomly divided into four groups of 30 teeth based on composite type with or without saliva contamination after etching and rinsing. Each group was further divided into three subgroups according to their rinsing time. Then a cylinder of the composite was bonded to the enamel and Shear bond strength was assessed. To determine the failure mode, the bonded surfaces were then observed under SEM. In addition, the DC of each group was measured at pH levels of 4 and 7 using FTIR spectroscopy. The data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and post hoc analysis followed by Fisher's least significant difference. Results The bond strength of the non-contaminated methacrylate group was significantly higher than the other groups (p< 0.0001). In addition, there was no significant deference between the methacrylate subgroups. In the Silorane groups, the shear bond strength was higher in the rinsing time of 15 seconds. Failure pattern was mainly adhesive. The DC of the Methacrylates had no significant difference at pH 4 and pH 7, but was significantly higher than that of Siloranes (p< 0.0001). While the DC of the Siloranes at pH 4 was significantly higher than at pH 7 (p< 0.0001). Conclusions Saliva contamination in both composites reduces bond strength. Increasing rinsing time in Methacrylates proves ineffective. In non-contaminated Siloranes, excessive rinsing time reduced bond strength. The best-recommended rinsing time for both composite is 15 seconds. Key words:Composite resins, Silorane composite resin, methacrylates, shear strength.
Farnoosh Fallahzadeh - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Effect of rinsing time and surface contamination on the bond strength of Silorane-based and dimethacrylate-based composites to enamel.
Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2018Co-Authors: Farnoosh Fallahzadeh, Mohammad Atai, Shirin Ghasemi, Ailin MahdkhahAbstract:The aim of this study was to assess whether saliva contamination and rinsing time for 15, 30, and 60 seconds, affects the shear bond strength of Silorane and methacrylate-based composites to enamel. Two light cure resin, P60 (3M ESPE) and Filtek LS Silorane were tested. 120 sound premolars were randomly divided into four groups of 30 teeth based on composite type with or without saliva contamination after etching and rinsing. Each group was further divided into three subgroups according to their rinsing time. Then a cylinder of the composite was bonded to the enamel and Shear bond strength was assessed. To determine the failure mode, the bonded surfaces were then observed under SEM. In addition, the DC of each group was measured at pH levels of 4 and 7 using FTIR spectroscopy. The data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and post hoc analysis followed by Fisher's least significant difference. The bond strength of the non-contaminated methacrylate group was significantly higher than the other groups (p< 0.0001). In addition, there was no significant deference between the methacrylate subgroups. In the Silorane groups, the shear bond strength was higher in the rinsing time of 15 seconds. Failure pattern was mainly adhesive. The DC of the Methacrylates had no significant difference at pH 4 and pH 7, but was significantly higher than that of Siloranes (p< 0.0001). While the DC of the Siloranes at pH 4 was significantly higher than at pH 7 (p< 0.0001). Saliva contamination in both composites reduces bond strength. Increasing rinsing time in Methacrylates proves ineffective. In non-contaminated Siloranes, excessive rinsing time reduced bond strength. The best-recommended rinsing time for both composite is 15 seconds. Key words:Composite resins, Silorane composite resin, methacrylates, shear strength.
-
Effect of rinsing time and surface contamination on the bond strength of Silorane-based and dimethacrylate-based composites to enamel.
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry, 2018Co-Authors: Farnoosh Fallahzadeh, Mohammad Atai, Shirin Ghasemi, Ailin MahdkhahAbstract:Background The aim of this study was to assess whether saliva contamination and rinsing time for 15, 30, and 60 seconds, affects the shear bond strength of Silorane and methacrylate-based composites to enamel. Material and Methods Two light cure resin, P60 (3M ESPE) and Filtek LS Silorane were tested. 120 sound premolars were randomly divided into four groups of 30 teeth based on composite type with or without saliva contamination after etching and rinsing. Each group was further divided into three subgroups according to their rinsing time. Then a cylinder of the composite was bonded to the enamel and Shear bond strength was assessed. To determine the failure mode, the bonded surfaces were then observed under SEM. In addition, the DC of each group was measured at pH levels of 4 and 7 using FTIR spectroscopy. The data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and post hoc analysis followed by Fisher's least significant difference. Results The bond strength of the non-contaminated methacrylate group was significantly higher than the other groups (p< 0.0001). In addition, there was no significant deference between the methacrylate subgroups. In the Silorane groups, the shear bond strength was higher in the rinsing time of 15 seconds. Failure pattern was mainly adhesive. The DC of the Methacrylates had no significant difference at pH 4 and pH 7, but was significantly higher than that of Siloranes (p< 0.0001). While the DC of the Siloranes at pH 4 was significantly higher than at pH 7 (p< 0.0001). Conclusions Saliva contamination in both composites reduces bond strength. Increasing rinsing time in Methacrylates proves ineffective. In non-contaminated Siloranes, excessive rinsing time reduced bond strength. The best-recommended rinsing time for both composite is 15 seconds. Key words:Composite resins, Silorane composite resin, methacrylates, shear strength.
Mohammad Ansarin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Effect of pre-heating on the mechanical properties of Silorane-based and methacrylate-based composites
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry, 2016Co-Authors: Narmin Mohammadi, Mahmoud Bahari, Soodabeh Kimyai, Elmira Jafari-navimipour, Amir Ahmad Ajami, Mohammad AnsarinAbstract:BACKGROUND The use of composites in dental restoration has been commonly criticized, due to their underwhelming mechanical properties. This problem may be solved partially by preheating. The present research aims to determine the effect of preheating on the mechanical properties of two different classes of composites. MATERIAL AND METHODS A Silorane-based (Silorane) and a Methacrylate-based (Z250) composite were preheated to different temperatures (25, 37, and 68 °C) and afterwards were tested with the appropriate devices for each testing protocol. The material's flexural strength, elastic modulus, and Vickers microhardness were evaluated. Two-way ANOVA, and Tukey's post hoc were used to analyze the data. RESULTS Microhardness and elastic modulus increased with preheating, while flexural strength values did not increase significantly with preheating. Furthermore the methacrylate-based composite (Z250) showed higher values compared to the Silorane-based composite (Silorane) in all the tested properties. CONCLUSIONS Preheating Silorane enhances the composite's microhardness and elastic modulus but does not affect its flexural strength. On the other hand, preheating Z250 increases its microhardness but does not change its flexural strength or elastic modulus. In addition, the Z250 composite shows higher microhardness and flexural strength than Silorane, but the elastic modulus values with preheating are similar. Therefore Z250 seems to have better mechanical properties making it the better choice in a clinical situation. Key words:Composite, elastic modulus, flexural strength, microhardness, preheating.
-
Effect of pre-heating on the mechanical properties of Silorane-based and methacrylate-based composites.
Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2016Co-Authors: Narmin Mohammadi, Mahmoud Bahari, Soodabeh Kimyai, Elmira Jafari-navimipour, Amir Ahmad Ajami, Mohammad AnsarinAbstract:The use of composites in dental restoration has been commonly criticized, due to their underwhelming mechanical properties. This problem may be solved partially by preheating. The present research aims to determine the effect of preheating on the mechanical properties of two different classes of composites. A Silorane-based (Silorane) and a Methacrylate-based (Z250) composite were preheated to different temperatures (25, 37, and 68 °C) and afterwards were tested with the appropriate devices for each testing protocol. The material's flexural strength, elastic modulus, and Vickers microhardness were evaluated. Two-way ANOVA, and Tukey's post hoc were used to analyze the data. Microhardness and elastic modulus increased with preheating, while flexural strength values did not increase significantly with preheating. Furthermore the methacrylate-based composite (Z250) showed higher values compared to the Silorane-based composite (Silorane) in all the tested properties. Preheating Silorane enhances the composite's microhardness and elastic modulus but does not affect its flexural strength. On the other hand, preheating Z250 increases its microhardness but does not change its flexural strength or elastic modulus. In addition, the Z250 composite shows higher microhardness and flexural strength than Silorane, but the elastic modulus values with preheating are similar. Therefore Z250 seems to have better mechanical properties making it the better choice in a clinical situation. Key words:Composite, elastic modulus, flexural strength, microhardness, preheating.
Preben Hørsted-bindslev - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Five-year evaluation of a low-shrinkage Silorane resin composite material: A randomized clinical trial
Clinical Oral Investigations, 2015Co-Authors: Malene Schmidt, Lise-lotte Kirkevang, Michael Vaeth, Irene Dige, Preben Hørsted-bindslevAbstract:Objectives The aim of the present study was to investigate the clinical performance of a low-shrinkage Silorane-based composite material (Filtek™ Silorane, 3 M-Espe) by comparing it with a methacrylate-based composite material (Ceram•X™, Dentsply DeTrey). Material and methods A number of 72patients (158 restorations) participated in the study. After 5 years, a total of 107 restorations (52 Filtek™ Silorane, 55 Ceram•X™) in 48 patients were evaluated. Only class II restorations were included. All the restorations were placed by the same dentist, and the restorations were scored by one experienced dentist/evaluator. Materials were applied following the manufacturer’s instructions. The primary outcome was marginal adaptation. Secondary outcomes were: marginal discoloration, approximal contact, anatomic form, fracture, secondary caries, and hypersensitivity. Results After 5 years, no statistically significant differences between the two materials were found in marginal adaptation either occlusally ( p = 0.96) or approximally ( p = 0.62). No statistically significant differences were found between the two materials in terms of approximal contact, anatomic form, fractures, or discoloration. Secondary caries was found in two teeth (Filtek™ Silorane). One tooth showed hypersensitivity (Ceram•X™). Conclusion Restorations of both materials were clinically acceptable after 5 years. This study did not find any advantage of the Silorane-based composite over the methacrylate-based composite, which indicates that the low-shrinkage of Filtek™ Silorane may not be a determinant factor for clinical success in class II cavities. Clinical relevance This paper is the first to evaluate the 5-year clinical performance of a low-shrinkage composite material.
-
Five-year evaluation of a low-shrinkage Silorane resin composite material: A randomized clinical trial
Clinical oral investigations, 2014Co-Authors: Malene Schmidt, Lise-lotte Kirkevang, Michael Vaeth, Irene Dige, Preben Hørsted-bindslevAbstract:Objectives The aim of the present study was to investigate the clinical performance of a low-shrinkage Silorane-based composite material (Filtek™ Silorane, 3 M-Espe) by comparing it with a methacrylate-based composite material (Ceram•X™, Dentsply DeTrey).
Thomas Attin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
repair of Silorane composite using the same substrate or a methacrylate based composite
Dental Materials, 2012Co-Authors: Annette Wiegand, Bogna Stawarczyk, Wolfgang Buchalla, Tobias T. Tauböck, Mutlu Özcan, Thomas AttinAbstract:Abstract Objective The study aimed to analyze the shear bond strength of aged Silorane composite repaired with the same substrate or a conventional methacrylate-based composite after different mechanical and adhesive surface treatments. Methods Silorane composite specimens were aged by thermal cycling (5000 cycles, 5–55 °C) and randomly assigned to different surface treatments (each group n = 16): diamond bur abrasion, aluminum oxide sandblasting, silica coating, or hydrofluoric acid etching. Then, an adhesive system corresponding to the repair composite or a combination of silane agent and the respective adhesive was applied. Silorane composite or a nanofiller composite were adhered onto the conditioned surfaces. In the control group ( n = 16), Silorane composite was adhered to fresh substrate (incremental build up). After further thermal cycling, shear bond strength was tested and failure modes were assessed. Data were analyzed by ANOVA/post hoc tests, Weibull statistics and Chi 2 -test ( p ≤ 0.05). Results Incremental shear bond strength (control group: 21.0 ± 10.5 MPa) was achieved by all groups except those etched with hydrofluoric acid or samples abraded with diamond bur and repaired with the nanofiller composite without silane application. Generally, the application of the silane agent improved repair bond strength of the nanofiller but not of the Silorane composite. Cohesive failure was observed more frequently than adhesive failure when the silane agent was applied or when Silorane composite was used for repair. Significance Silorane composite can be repaired with either the same substrate or a methacrylate-based nanofiller composite but requires mechanical surface treatment and – in case of the methacrylate-based composite – silanization prior to adhesive application.
-
Repair of Silorane composite—Using the same substrate or a methacrylate-based composite?
Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials, 2011Co-Authors: Annette Wiegand, Bogna Stawarczyk, Wolfgang Buchalla, Tobias T. Tauböck, Mutlu Özcan, Thomas AttinAbstract:Abstract Objective The study aimed to analyze the shear bond strength of aged Silorane composite repaired with the same substrate or a conventional methacrylate-based composite after different mechanical and adhesive surface treatments. Methods Silorane composite specimens were aged by thermal cycling (5000 cycles, 5–55 °C) and randomly assigned to different surface treatments (each group n = 16): diamond bur abrasion, aluminum oxide sandblasting, silica coating, or hydrofluoric acid etching. Then, an adhesive system corresponding to the repair composite or a combination of silane agent and the respective adhesive was applied. Silorane composite or a nanofiller composite were adhered onto the conditioned surfaces. In the control group ( n = 16), Silorane composite was adhered to fresh substrate (incremental build up). After further thermal cycling, shear bond strength was tested and failure modes were assessed. Data were analyzed by ANOVA/post hoc tests, Weibull statistics and Chi 2 -test ( p ≤ 0.05). Results Incremental shear bond strength (control group: 21.0 ± 10.5 MPa) was achieved by all groups except those etched with hydrofluoric acid or samples abraded with diamond bur and repaired with the nanofiller composite without silane application. Generally, the application of the silane agent improved repair bond strength of the nanofiller but not of the Silorane composite. Cohesive failure was observed more frequently than adhesive failure when the silane agent was applied or when Silorane composite was used for repair. Significance Silorane composite can be repaired with either the same substrate or a methacrylate-based nanofiller composite but requires mechanical surface treatment and – in case of the methacrylate-based composite – silanization prior to adhesive application.