GET THE APP

Comparative Evaluation of Push out Bond Strength of Restorations with Bulk Fill, Flowable, and Conventional Resin Composite Restoration: An in vitro Study | Abstract

Journal of Research in Medical and Dental Science
eISSN No. 2347-2367 pISSN No. 2347-2545

All submissions of the EM system will be redirected to Online Manuscript Submission System. Authors are requested to submit articles directly to Online Manuscript Submission System of respective journal.

Comparative Evaluation of Push out Bond Strength of Restorations with Bulk Fill, Flowable, and Conventional Resin Composite Restoration: An in vitro Study

Author(s): Praktan B Gire, Neha Alone*, Ulhas Dudhekar, Abhilash Dudhekar, Minal Ganvir

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the bond strengths of composite restorations made with different filler amounts and resin composites that were photo activated using a light-emitting diode (LED). Methodology: Thirty bovine incisors were selected, and a conical cavity was prepared in the facial surface of each tooth. All preparations were etched with 37% phosphoric acid, Te-Econom bond universal dental adhesive system was applied followed by photo activation, and the cavities were filled with a single increment of Tertic n cerem bulk, Smart dentin replacement (SDR) and Tetric N ceram nanohybrid, followed by photo activation. A push-out test to determine bond strength was conducted using a universal testing machine. Result: Data (MPa) were submitted to Student’s t-test at a 5% significance level. Among the three groups Conventional (5.86± 1.96) resin composite had a lower bond strength than the Bulk fill (6.53 ± 1.063) and Flowable (6.28± 1.085) resin composites ( p=0.014). After the test, the fractured specimens were examined using an optical microscope under magnification (10x). All the three composites demonstrated a high prevalence of adhesive failures (Conventional resin composite 90%; Bulk fill, 80%; and Flowable, 80%) Conclusion: Although all three composites demonstrated a high prevalence of adhesive failures, the bond strength values of the different resin composites photo activated by LED showed that the Tetric N Ceram nanohybrid had lower bond strength than the Tertic n cerem bulk fill and Smart dentin replacement flowable resin composites.

Share this article

cappadocia tours
cappadocia hotels
cappadocia balloon flights

paper.io

agar io

wormax io