Porcelain laminate veneers: reasons for 25 years of success.

This article discusses failures that could occur if meticulous attention is not given to details such as planning the case, conservative (enamel saving) preparation of teeth, proper selection of ceramics to use, proper selection of the materials and methods of cementation of these restorations, proper finishing and polishing of the restorations, and proper planning for the continuing maintenance of these restorations. Some concerns as to newer products and methods and their effect on the continued success of this modality of treatment are also addressed.

Effect of 2 percent iodine disinfecting solution on bond strength to dentin

INTRODUCTION: Disinfection of dentin surfaces is desirable so long as it does not interfere with subsequent bonding of adhesive resins. OBJECTIVE: To test the null hypothesis that bond strengths to dentin are not affected by previous application of an iodine disinfecting solution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four extracted non-carious molars were selected. Occlusal enamel was removed producing a flat dentin substrate. Test teeth were all treated with 2 percent Iodine disclosing/disinfecting solution (I2DDS) for 20 sec and rinsed for 20 sec followed by the application of self- or total- etching bonding systems, generating five adhesive groups (n=3): Single Bond; ; Prime & Bond NT; Clearfil SE Bond; Opti-Bond Plus. The control groups (n=3 per adhesive) had no disclosing/disinfectant application prior to adhesive application. A 4-mm thick resin restoration was built up on each tooth for microtensile testing. Statistical analyses between experimental and control groups were performed by student's t-test (alpha= 0.05). RESULTS: In general, experimental groups (previously treated with I2DDS) showed significantly lower bond strength values when compared with their respective controls (p<0.05), except for group Prime &Bond I2 that did not significantly differ from its control (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Acetone-base adhesive systems seem not to be affected by the application of I2DDS prior to etching and bonding procedures.

INTRODUÇÃO: A desinfecção das superfícies de dentina é desejada desde que não haja interferência na adesão dos agentes adesivos. OBJETIVO: Testar a hipótese nula de que a resistência adesiva não é afetada pela aplicação prévia de uma solução desinfetante de iodo. MATERIAL AND MÉTODO: Vinte e quatro molares hígidos foram selecionados. O esmalte oclusal destes dentes foi removido, e sobre as superfícies planas de dentina expostas foi aplicada da solução desinfetante de Iodo a 2 por cento (I2DDS), que permaneceu sobre a superfície por 20 s e foi lavada por 20 s com água deionizada. Sobre as superfícies desinfetadas foram aplicados um dos seguintes sistemas adesivos (n=3): Single Bond; Prime & Bond NT; Clearfil SE Bond; Opti-Bond Plus. Os grupos controle (n=3) não tiveram a supeficie de dentina tratada com I2DDS antes dos precedimentos adesivos. Em todos os grupos, após hibridização da dentina, foi construída uma "restauração" de resina composta com cerca de 4 mm de espessura. Após 7 dias de armazenagem em água destilada, os dentes foram secionados de modo a originarem espécimes a serem submetidos ao teste de microtração (palitos). Análise estatística para comparação dos dados foi realizada pelo teste t de student (alfa=0,05). RESULTADOS: De forma geral, os grupos experimentais (tratados com I2DDS) apresentraram resistência adesiva significativamente menor do que os respectivos grupos controle (p<0.05), exceção se fez apenas para o grupo P&BI2, que não diferiu significativamente de seu grupo controle P&BC (p>0.05). Assim, a hipótese nula deve ser rejeitada para os adesivos a base de etanol e/ou a base de água, mas aceita para o adesivo a base de acetona. CONCLUSÃO: O uso da solução experimental de iodo previamente à realização dos procedimentos adesivos afetou a efetividade da união à dentina apenas quando do emprego de sistemas adesivos a base de etanol e/ou água.

Effect of 2% iodine disinfecting solution on bond strength to dentin.

INTRODUCTION: Disinfection of dentin surfaces is desirable so long as it does not interfere with subsequent bonding of adhesive resins. OBJECTIVE: To test the null hypothesis that bond strengths to dentin are not affected by previous application of an iodine disinfecting solution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four extracted non-carious molars were selected. Occlusal enamel was removed producing a flat dentin substrate. Test teeth were all treated with 2% Iodine disclosing/disinfecting solution (I(2)DDS) for 20 sec and rinsed for 20 sec followed by the application of self- or total- etching bonding systems, generating five adhesive groups (n=3): Single Bond; Prime & Bond NT; Clearfil SE Bond; Opti-Bond Plus. The control groups (n=3 per adhesive) had no disclosing/disinfectant application prior to adhesive application. A 4-mm thick resin restoration was built up on each tooth for microtensile testing. Statistical analyses between experimental and control groups were performed by student's t-test (alpha= 0.05). RESULTS: In general, experimental groups (previously treated with I(2)DDS) showed significantly lower bond strength values when compared with their respective controls (p<0.05), except for group Prime & Bond I(2) that did not significantly differ from its control (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Acetone-base adhesive systems seem not to be affected by the application of I(2)DDS prior to etching and bonding procedures.

Bond angle effects on microtensile bonds: laboratory and FEA comparison.

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that there is a reduction in bond strength when a microtensile load is applied to adhesive junctions prepared at 10, 20 and 30 degrees to the usual perpendicular interface. To evaluate the effect of bond angle and adhesive layer thickness on stress levels within the adhesive joint utilizing FEA. METHODS: Twenty-four non-carious third molars were selected, occlusal enamel removed and polished perpendicular to the long axis of the tooth. The Clearfil SE Bond and Single Bond were applied on the dentin. A 4 mm resin restoration, Z 100, was built up. The teeth were sectioned at 10 degrees, 20 degrees and 30 degrees to the bonding interface (n = 3). The control (n = 3) group had all cuts parallel to the tooth longitudinal axis (0 degrees bond angle). The bond values were calculated in MPa and Two-Way ANOVA and Tukey test applied. FEA was performed (1 mm/side square specimens) to obtain the maximum principal stress (MPS) in the microtensile-model for each bond angle and for varying adhesive thickness from 20 microm to 200 microm for each group. RESULTS: The bond strength results diminish as the angle on the interface increased (P<0.05) for Clearfil SE Bond between 0 (control) and 30 degrees, and for Single Bond between 0 (control) and 10, 20, and 30 degrees. The hypothesis can be fully accepted for Single Bond and partially accepted for Clearfil SE Bond. For the FEA, there was a trend toward decreasing MPS as the bond angle increased, while the MPS for each angled group increased with adhesive layer thickness. SIGNIFICANCE: The MPS results for angled interfaces, exhibited the same trend as the lab values. FEA results indicated an MPS increase with increased adhesive thickness.