• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.11-18
• /
• 1985

The purpose of this study was to observe the facial, lingual and gingival walls of the cavity walls with various kinds of cutting tools. Class II cavities were prepared in newly extracted sound humen mandibular 1st left premolars, and observed in Sanning electron microscope. Diamond point (#201) and Tungsten Carbide burs (#170L) were used in ultra high speed handpieces (rpm 200000), and Tungsten Carbide bur (#702) and Steel bur (#560) were used in conventional handpieces (rpm 6000). All cavities were prepared under water spray, except for some which were finished with a dry abrasive stone (#57). Some cavities were finished with chisels (#41, 42, 83). The following results were obtained. 1. The cavity walls prepared with Diamond point were rougher than the cavity walls with Carbide burs and Steel burs. 2. The chisels were produced the smoothest surface. 3. The cavity walls which were prepared with cutting blades rotated toward enamel surface from outside, were smoother than cavity walls which were prepared with cutting blades rotated toward outside from the enamel surface.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.47 no.1
• /
• pp.4.1-4.13
• /
• 2022

Objectives: This study evaluated the effects of different smear layer preparations on the dentin permeability and microtensile bond strength (µTBS) of 2 self-etching adhesives (Clearfil SE Bond [CSE] and Clearfil Tri-S Bond Universal [CTS]) under dynamic pulpal pressure. Materials and Methods: Human third molars were cut into crown segments. The dentin surfaces were prepared using 4 armamentaria: 600-grit SiC paper, coarse diamond burs, superfine diamond burs, and carbide burs. The pulp chamber of each crown segment was connected to a dynamic intra-pulpal pressure simulation apparatus, and the permeability test was done under a pressure of 15 cmH₂O. The relative permeability (%P) was evaluated on the smear layer-covered and bonded dentin surfaces. The teeth were bonded to either of the adhesives under pulpal pressure simulation, and cut into sticks after 24 hours water storage for the µTBS test. The resin-dentin interface and nanoleakage observations were performed using a scanning electron microscope. Statistical comparisons were done using analysis of variance and post hoc tests. Results: Only the method of surface preparation had a significant effect on permeability (p < 0.05). The smear layers created by the carbide and superfine diamond burs yielded the lowest permeability. CSE demonstrated a higher µTBS, with these values in the superfine diamond and carbide bur groups being the highest. Microscopic evaluation of the resin-dentin interface revealed nanoleakage in the coarse diamond bur and SiC paper groups for both adhesives. Conclusions: Superfine diamond and carbide burs can be recommended for dentin preparation with the use of 2-step CSE.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.13-19
• /
• 2010

The purpose of this study was to compare the microshear bond strength of a self-etching primer adhesive to dentin prepared with different diamond points, carbide burs and SiC papers, and also to determine which SiC paper yield similar strength to that of dentinal surface prepared with points or burs. Fifty-six human molar were sectioned to expose the occlusal dentinal surfaces of crowns and slabs of 1.2 mm thick were made. Dentinal surfaces were removed with three diamond points, two carbide burs, and three SiC papers. They were divided into one of eight equal groups (n = 7); Group 1: standard diamond point(TF-12), Group 2: fine diamond point (TF-12F), Group 3: extrafine diamond point (TF-12EF), Group 4: plain-cut carbide bur (no. 245), Group 5: cross-cut carbide bur (no. 557), Group 6 : P 120-grade SiC paper, Group 7: P 220-grade SiC paper, Group 8: P 800-grade SiC paper. Clearfil SE Bond was applied on dentinal surface and Clearfil AP-X was placed on dentinal surface using Tygon tubes. After the bonded specimens were subjected to uSBS testing, the mean uSBS (n = 20 for each group) was statistically compared using one-way ANOV A and Tukey HSD test. In conclusion, the use of extrafine diamond point is recommended for improved bonding of Clearfil SE Bond to dentin. Also the use of P 220-grade SiC paper in vitro will be yield the results closer to dentinal surface prepared with fine diamond point or carbide burs in vivo.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.23-26
• /
• 1975

The purpose of this study was to measure the retentive force of various kinds of dental cement. Cross-cutting the half of the occlusal surface, pinholes were prepared on the dentin with No. 557 carbide bur. No. 557 steel burs were cemented in the pinholes and retentive force was measured by removing the burs with Instron testing machine. The Instron testing machine was operated at a rate of 0.2 cm per minute. The following results were obtained : 1. The retentive force of zinc phosphate cement(A), reinforced zinc oxide and eugenol cement and polycarboxylate cement were similar to each other, but that of zinc phosphate cement (A) was the highest of all. 2. The retentive force of zinc phosphate cement (B) was the lowest of all.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.36 no.6
• /
• pp.477-482
• /
• 2011

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the microshear bond strength (uSBS) to enamel prepared with different burs and to determine what type of bur were chosen when a self-etching primer adhesive was used. Materials and Methods: Enamel of forty-two human molars were used. They were divided into one of six groups (n = 7), Group 1, coarse (125 - 150 ${\mu}m$) diamond bur; Group 2, standard (106 - 125 ${\mu}m$) diamond bur; Group 3, fine (53 - 63 ${\mu}m$) diamond bur; Group 4, extrafine (20 - 30 ${\mu}m$) diamond bur; Group 5, plaincut carbide bur (no. 245); Group 6, cross-cut carbide bur (no. 557). Clearfil SE Bond and Clearfil AP-X (Kuraray Medical Inc.) was bonded to enamel surface. The bonded specimens were subjected to uSBS testing. Results: The uSBS of Group 4 was the highest among groups and it was significantly higher than that of Groups 1, 2, 3, and 6 (p < 0.05), but it was not significantly different from that of Group 5. Conclusions: Different burs used on enamel surface affected the microshear bond strengths of a self-etching primer adhesive to the enamel surface. In the case of Clearfil SE Bond, extrafine diamond and plain-cut carbide bur are recommended for bonding to enamel.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.32 no.4
• /
• pp.327-334
• /
• 2007

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of burs on microleakage of Class V resin restorations when a self-etching primer adhesive was used. Forty Class V cavities were prepared with four different cutting burs on extracted third molars, and divided into one of four equal groups (n = 10); Group 1-plain cut carbide bur (no. 245), Group 2-cross cut carbide bur (no. 557), Group 3-fine diamond bur (TF-21F), Group 4-standard diamond bur (EX-41). The occlusal and gingival margin of cavities was located in enamel and dentin, respectively. Cavities were treated with Clearfil SE Bond and restored with Clearfil AP-X. Specimens were thermocycled, immersed in a 2% methylene blue solution for 24 hours, and bisected longitudinally. They were observed leakages at enamel and dentinal margins. Data were analyzed using Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon signed ranked test. The results of this study were as follows; 1. At enamel margin, microleakage of group 4 was statistically higher than those of group 1, 2 and 3 (p < 0.01). 2. At dentinal margin, microleakage of group 4 was statistically higher than group 3 (p < 0.01), but group 1 and 2 were not statistically different with group 3 and 4. 3. Enamel microleakage was statistically higher than dentinal microleakage in group 1, 2 and 3 (p < 0.05), but statistical difference between the microleakage of enamel and dentinal margin was not in Group 4. In conclusion, the use of coarse diamond bur showed high microleakage at both enamel and dentinal margin when Clearfil SE Bond was used in class V cavity.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.513-533
• /
• 1994

The smooth surface after polishing of composite resin contributes to the patient's comfort, and appearance and longevity of the restoration. This study was performed for the quantitative analysis of the effects of the various finishing and polishing instruments on the surface roughness and reflectivity of the microfill, and hybrid composite resins. Cylindrical specimens 2mm thick and 10mm in diameter of Silux Plus, Durafill VS ; Z100, Prisma TPH, Brilliant, and Herculite XR composite resin were polymerized under the matrix strip. 18 specimens for each composite resin materials were divided into 6 groups ; 5 experimental groups were abraded with # 600 sand paper to remove resin-rich layer, except control. Thereafter, using diamond bur(Mani Dia-Burs), carbide bur(E. T. carbide set 4159), rubber point(Composite polishing kit), aluminum-oxide disk(Sof-Lex disk), polishing paste(Enhance system) ; each specimen was polished to its best achievable surface according to manufacturer's directions. Final polished surfaces were evaluated for the surface roughness with profilometer(${\alpha}$-step 200, Tencor instruments, USA) and for the reflectivity with image analyser(Omniment Image Analyser, Buehler, USA). The results were as follows. 1. Polishing paste or aluminum-oxide disk finish in the microfill, and hybrid composite resins was as smooth as matrix strip finish on the surface roughness test. 2. Polishing paste or aluminum-oxide disk finish in the microfill ; polishing paste finish in the hybrid composite resins was as reflective as matrix strip finish on the refectivity test. 3. For the polishing paste, there were no significant differences between the composite resin materials on the surface roughness and refectivity tests. 4. For the aluminum-oxide disk, the best result was obtained with the microfill composite resin on the surface roughness and reflectivity test. 5. Diamond bur, carbide bur, and rubber point were inappropriate for the final polishing instruments.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.8 no.3
• /
• pp.224-228
• /
• 2016

PURPOSE. This study aimed to investigate whether dentin surface preparation with diamond rotary instruments of different grit sizes affects the shear bond strength of resin-bonded restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The buccal enamel of 60 maxillary central incisors was removed with a low speed diamond saw and wet ground with silicon carbide papers. The polished surfaces of the teeth were prepared with four groups of rotary diamond burs with super-coarse (SC), coarse (C), medium (M), and fine (F) grit sizes. Following surface preparation, 60 restorations were casted with nickel-chromium alloy and bonded with Panavia cement. To assess the shear bond strength, the samples were mounted on a universal testing machine and an axial load was applied along the cement-restoration interface at the crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The acquired data was analyzed with one way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc test (${\alpha}=.05$). RESULTS. The $mean{\pm}SD$ shear bond strengths (in MPa) of the study groups were $17.75{\pm}1.41$ for SC, $13.82{\pm}1.13$ for C, $10.40{\pm}1.45$ for M, and $7.13{\pm}1.18$ for F. Statistical analysis revealed the significant difference among the study groups such that the value for group SC was significantly higher than that for group F (P<.001). CONCLUSION. Dentin surface roughness created by diamond burs of different grit sizes considerably influences the shear bond strength of resin bonded restorations.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.97-106
• /
• 1982

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of different polishing procedures on the surfaces of composite resins. Two-paste type comosite restorative resin (Hipol) was selected for this study. 70 cavities prepared on the plaster-stone dies, 6mm in diameter and 2mm in depth, was filled with composite resin according to the manufacturer's specifications and by polymerizing against mylar strips. The polymerized composite resin specimens were polished (surface finished) by using 6 polishing devices; white stones, diamond finishing points, 12-fluted carbide finishing burs, green stones, sand paper disks, and Quasite rubber disk after polished with sand paper disks and green stones. A profilometer (Bendix type) was used to record in microinches the surface roughness of each surface finished composite resin specimens. The results were as follows. 1. The best finished surface that can be obtained is a surface formed by the mylar matrix strip 2. The white stones produced the smoothest surface in the experimental group. 3. The green stones produced the roughest surface in the experimental group. 4. It was proved that the gradual use of finishing instruments from a rough one to fine ones reduced the surface roughness.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.6 no.4
• /
• pp.317-324
• /
• 2014

PURPOSE. This study was to evaluate the effect of grinding of the inner metal surface during the porcelain try-in stage on metal-porcelain bonding considering the maximum temperature and the vibration of samples. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Ninety-one square prism-shaped ($1{\times}1{\times}1.5mm$) nickel-chrome cast frameworks 0.3 mm thick were prepared. Porcelain was applied on two opposite outer axial surfaces of the frameworks. The grinding was performed from the opposite axial sides of the inner metal surfaces with a low-speed handpiece with two types of burs (diamond, tungsten-carbide) under three grinding forces (3.5 N, 7 N, 14 N) and at two durations (5 seconds, 10 seconds). The shear bond strength (SBS) test was performed with universal testing machine. Statistical analyzes were performed at 5% significance level. RESULTS. The samples subjected to grinding under 3.5 N showed higher SBS values than those exposed to grinding under 7 N and 14 N (P<.05). SBS values of none of the groups differed from those of the control group (P>.05). The types of bur (P=.965) and the duration (P=.679) did not affect the SBS values. On the other hand, type of bur, force applied, and duration of the grinding affected the maximum temperatures of the samples, whereas the maximum vibration was affected only by the type of bur (P<.05). CONCLUSION. Grinding the inner metal surface did not affect the metal-porcelain bond strength. Although the grinding affected the maximum temperature and the vibration values of the samples, these did not influence the bonding strength.