Microtensile bond strength testing and failure analysis of hybrid and flowable composites

Cindy T. Jones, Daniel C.N. Chan, David Henry Pashley, Mario Fernando De Goes, Steven K. Nelson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: Few studies have been performed on the cohesive tensile strength of flowable resin composites and hybrids, or on the coupling strength of flowables to hybrid composites. Thus, the purpose of this study was to measure interfacial microtensile bond strengths between hybrid resin composite and flowable resin composite/compomer. Materials and Methods: A polyvinyl siloxane mold was used to fabricate specimens for 9 groups, each consisting of 15 rectangular beams (2 × 2 × 20 mm). Flowable and hybrid resin composites and their paired couplings with each manufacturer's product line were tested. Materials include Heliomolarflow, Revolution, and Dyractflow as representative flowable resin composites and compomer. Heliomolar HB, Prodigy, and Esthet X were selected as representive hybrid resin composites. Resin specimens were cured for a total of 80 s and immersed in water for 7 days. A microspecimen former was used to trim rectangular specimens into specimens with a circular cross section (diameter = 1.0 mm) with a 2 mm gauge length. Specimens were subjected to tensile forces in a passive-gripping space mounted on a Vitrodyne machine. Results: The results are expressed in MPa. Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA on ranks demonstrated significant differences in microtensile bond strength among groups (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The cohesive tensile strength of resin composites were material dependent. Flowable and hybrid composites from the same manufacturer have comparable cohesive tensile strengths. The coupling strength of flowable/hybrid combinations were comparable to cohesive strength of the hybrid composites with the exception of Esthet X/Dyractflow, where the coupling was stronger than the cohesive strength of either resin composite alone.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)13-20
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Adhesive Dentistry
Volume8
Issue number1
StatePublished - Feb 27 2006

Fingerprint

Composite Resins
Tensile Strength
Compomers
Analysis of Variance
Fungi
flowable hybrid composite
Water
Esthet-X

Keywords

  • Cohesive strength of composites
  • Composite coupling strength
  • SEM evaluation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthodontics
  • Oral Surgery
  • Periodontics

Cite this

Jones, C. T., Chan, D. C. N., Pashley, D. H., De Goes, M. F., & Nelson, S. K. (2006). Microtensile bond strength testing and failure analysis of hybrid and flowable composites. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry, 8(1), 13-20.

Microtensile bond strength testing and failure analysis of hybrid and flowable composites. / Jones, Cindy T.; Chan, Daniel C.N.; Pashley, David Henry; De Goes, Mario Fernando; Nelson, Steven K.

In: Journal of Adhesive Dentistry, Vol. 8, No. 1, 27.02.2006, p. 13-20.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Jones, CT, Chan, DCN, Pashley, DH, De Goes, MF & Nelson, SK 2006, 'Microtensile bond strength testing and failure analysis of hybrid and flowable composites', Journal of Adhesive Dentistry, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 13-20.
Jones CT, Chan DCN, Pashley DH, De Goes MF, Nelson SK. Microtensile bond strength testing and failure analysis of hybrid and flowable composites. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry. 2006 Feb 27;8(1):13-20.
Jones, Cindy T. ; Chan, Daniel C.N. ; Pashley, David Henry ; De Goes, Mario Fernando ; Nelson, Steven K. / Microtensile bond strength testing and failure analysis of hybrid and flowable composites. In: Journal of Adhesive Dentistry. 2006 ; Vol. 8, No. 1. pp. 13-20.
@article{7247f8c883bc44f2b0c92759775b63bb,
title = "Microtensile bond strength testing and failure analysis of hybrid and flowable composites",
abstract = "Purpose: Few studies have been performed on the cohesive tensile strength of flowable resin composites and hybrids, or on the coupling strength of flowables to hybrid composites. Thus, the purpose of this study was to measure interfacial microtensile bond strengths between hybrid resin composite and flowable resin composite/compomer. Materials and Methods: A polyvinyl siloxane mold was used to fabricate specimens for 9 groups, each consisting of 15 rectangular beams (2 × 2 × 20 mm). Flowable and hybrid resin composites and their paired couplings with each manufacturer's product line were tested. Materials include Heliomolarflow, Revolution, and Dyractflow as representative flowable resin composites and compomer. Heliomolar HB, Prodigy, and Esthet X were selected as representive hybrid resin composites. Resin specimens were cured for a total of 80 s and immersed in water for 7 days. A microspecimen former was used to trim rectangular specimens into specimens with a circular cross section (diameter = 1.0 mm) with a 2 mm gauge length. Specimens were subjected to tensile forces in a passive-gripping space mounted on a Vitrodyne machine. Results: The results are expressed in MPa. Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA on ranks demonstrated significant differences in microtensile bond strength among groups (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The cohesive tensile strength of resin composites were material dependent. Flowable and hybrid composites from the same manufacturer have comparable cohesive tensile strengths. The coupling strength of flowable/hybrid combinations were comparable to cohesive strength of the hybrid composites with the exception of Esthet X/Dyractflow, where the coupling was stronger than the cohesive strength of either resin composite alone.",
keywords = "Cohesive strength of composites, Composite coupling strength, SEM evaluation",
author = "Jones, {Cindy T.} and Chan, {Daniel C.N.} and Pashley, {David Henry} and {De Goes}, {Mario Fernando} and Nelson, {Steven K.}",
year = "2006",
month = "2",
day = "27",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "8",
pages = "13--20",
journal = "The journal of adhesive dentistry",
issn = "1461-5185",
publisher = "Quintessence Publishing Company",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Microtensile bond strength testing and failure analysis of hybrid and flowable composites

AU - Jones, Cindy T.

AU - Chan, Daniel C.N.

AU - Pashley, David Henry

AU - De Goes, Mario Fernando

AU - Nelson, Steven K.

PY - 2006/2/27

Y1 - 2006/2/27

N2 - Purpose: Few studies have been performed on the cohesive tensile strength of flowable resin composites and hybrids, or on the coupling strength of flowables to hybrid composites. Thus, the purpose of this study was to measure interfacial microtensile bond strengths between hybrid resin composite and flowable resin composite/compomer. Materials and Methods: A polyvinyl siloxane mold was used to fabricate specimens for 9 groups, each consisting of 15 rectangular beams (2 × 2 × 20 mm). Flowable and hybrid resin composites and their paired couplings with each manufacturer's product line were tested. Materials include Heliomolarflow, Revolution, and Dyractflow as representative flowable resin composites and compomer. Heliomolar HB, Prodigy, and Esthet X were selected as representive hybrid resin composites. Resin specimens were cured for a total of 80 s and immersed in water for 7 days. A microspecimen former was used to trim rectangular specimens into specimens with a circular cross section (diameter = 1.0 mm) with a 2 mm gauge length. Specimens were subjected to tensile forces in a passive-gripping space mounted on a Vitrodyne machine. Results: The results are expressed in MPa. Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA on ranks demonstrated significant differences in microtensile bond strength among groups (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The cohesive tensile strength of resin composites were material dependent. Flowable and hybrid composites from the same manufacturer have comparable cohesive tensile strengths. The coupling strength of flowable/hybrid combinations were comparable to cohesive strength of the hybrid composites with the exception of Esthet X/Dyractflow, where the coupling was stronger than the cohesive strength of either resin composite alone.

AB - Purpose: Few studies have been performed on the cohesive tensile strength of flowable resin composites and hybrids, or on the coupling strength of flowables to hybrid composites. Thus, the purpose of this study was to measure interfacial microtensile bond strengths between hybrid resin composite and flowable resin composite/compomer. Materials and Methods: A polyvinyl siloxane mold was used to fabricate specimens for 9 groups, each consisting of 15 rectangular beams (2 × 2 × 20 mm). Flowable and hybrid resin composites and their paired couplings with each manufacturer's product line were tested. Materials include Heliomolarflow, Revolution, and Dyractflow as representative flowable resin composites and compomer. Heliomolar HB, Prodigy, and Esthet X were selected as representive hybrid resin composites. Resin specimens were cured for a total of 80 s and immersed in water for 7 days. A microspecimen former was used to trim rectangular specimens into specimens with a circular cross section (diameter = 1.0 mm) with a 2 mm gauge length. Specimens were subjected to tensile forces in a passive-gripping space mounted on a Vitrodyne machine. Results: The results are expressed in MPa. Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA on ranks demonstrated significant differences in microtensile bond strength among groups (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The cohesive tensile strength of resin composites were material dependent. Flowable and hybrid composites from the same manufacturer have comparable cohesive tensile strengths. The coupling strength of flowable/hybrid combinations were comparable to cohesive strength of the hybrid composites with the exception of Esthet X/Dyractflow, where the coupling was stronger than the cohesive strength of either resin composite alone.

KW - Cohesive strength of composites

KW - Composite coupling strength

KW - SEM evaluation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33144489422&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33144489422&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 16536339

AN - SCOPUS:33144489422

VL - 8

SP - 13

EP - 20

JO - The journal of adhesive dentistry

JF - The journal of adhesive dentistry

SN - 1461-5185

IS - 1

ER -