Saliva contamination does not affect bonding?

Discussion in 'Dental Archive' started by Vel, Aug 7, 2003.

  1. Vel

    Vel Guest

    I was surprised to read that
    Taskonak and Sertgoz (2002) suggest in their study `Shear Bond
    Strengths of Saliva Contaminated ŚOne-bottle Adhesives` that
    "contamination of dentin [by saliva] has no adverse effect on the
    bonding efficiency of one-bottle adhesive systems". Saliva was
    introduced during the bonding process after etching with phosphoric
    acid for one study group, and after light curing the adhesive for
    another group. A control group did not receive any contamination
    during the bonding procedures. It was concluded from the data that
    there were no statistical differences between all three groups in the
    study.
    http://www1.umn.edu/dental/courses/dent_6806fall02/paper4/paper4.html


    I would like Stefen Fawks to comment was this study any reliable?


    thanks in advance, i am learning much from you all
     
    Vel, Aug 7, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. No secondary caries were detected in this one-year study, and
    polymerization shrinkage was only 1.8% by volume for Filtek Z250 and
    2.2% for Heliomolar. Overall, Heliomolar and Filtek Z250 were
    statistically similar and both were superior to the other tested
    brands




    ******


    Good materials!

    On 7 Aug 2003 14:33:21 -0700, (Vel) wrote:
    --
    Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.
    Philadelphia PA

    STANDARD DISCLAIMER applies:
    no one has seen the tooth or
    teeth in question so take
    this advice within its proper
    context ~ this is the internet!
     
    Joel M. Eichen D.D.S., Aug 8, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Me too!

    Very surprised!


    Besides reducing the time involved, it is possible that the fewer
    steps may reduce the risk of contamination of the system as Taskonak
    and Sertgoz (2002) suggest in their study Shear Bond Strengths of
    Saliva Contaminated ?One-bottle' Adhesives. In the study Taskonak and
    Sertgoz conducted, however, it was shown that "contamination of dentin
    [by saliva] has no adverse effect on the bonding efficiency of
    one-bottle adhesive systems". Saliva was introduced during the bonding
    process after etching with phosphoric acid for one study group, and
    after light curing the adhesive for another group. A control group did
    not receive any contamination during the bonding procedures. It was
    concluded from the data that there were no statistical differences
    between all three groups in the study. Thus the utilization of
    one-bottle systems may not only reduce chair time in theory, but may
    also allow for adequate bonding in an inadequate isolation situation.



    *********

    On 7 Aug 2003 14:33:21 -0700, (Vel) wrote:
    --
    Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.
    Philadelphia PA

    STANDARD DISCLAIMER applies:
    no one has seen the tooth or
    teeth in question so take
    this advice within its proper
    context ~ this is the internet!
     
    Joel M. Eichen D.D.S., Aug 8, 2003
    #3
  4. Vel

    Vel Guest

    This was from a different study(CRA report) -not from the study of
    Taskonak and Sertgoz -Shear BondStrengths of Saliva Contaminated
    ;One-bottle Adhesives`-.
     
    Vel, Aug 8, 2003
    #4
  5. Vel

    Vel Guest


    Hi Joel!

    Was this sarcasm and implying something beyond the apparent words?
     
    Vel, Aug 8, 2003
    #5
  6. Vel

    WB Guest

    I use Z250 it handles better than Z100 and seems to be
    a denser material, increased hardness after curing than
    Z100 (so it seems, don't have data, just my perception)
    Excellent polishability (sp?) and seems quite durable.

    Am using with scotchbond and a generic etchant.

    On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 17:04:16 GMT, Steven Fawks
     
    WB, Aug 8, 2003
    #6
  7. On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 17:04:16 GMT, Steven Fawks
    Surprisingly good ,,,, nice handling characteristics, non-slumping,
    etc.


    --
    Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.
    Philadelphia PA

    STANDARD DISCLAIMER applies:
    no one has seen the tooth or
    teeth in question so take
    this advice within its proper
    context ~ this is the internet!
     
    Joel M. Eichen D.D.S., Aug 8, 2003
    #7
  8. Vel

    WB Guest

    As a one time 'dyed in the wool' opponent of molar
    composites due to the failure rate.
    Only used Z-100 for anteriors and bicuspids.
    Tried P-30 for bicuspids but was not impressed.
    Have tried most materials over the years.

    Filtek Z-250 if placed with a modicum of attention
    to detail is so superior to any other composite that
    I have ever tried.
    Getting a practitoner to change materials is harder than
    'pulling teeth'

    I offer patients options...
    I would lke to try this new material. what do you think ?
    If it doesn't work, I will repace it: free; within 6 mos.
    I also have many patients that agree to this arrangement
    that I suggest at the time that I do a cleaning that I have a
    new material that I want to test (replace an asymptomatic restoration)
    as a test subject for free.

    I have many takers and very few complainers.

    Later Gator,
    WB

     
    WB, Aug 10, 2003
    #8
  9. Vel

    WB Guest

    I restored 3, 14 OL on my daughter with Z-250 and we took a
    IOC picture today, they blend so well almost indistinguishable
    from the natural tooth.

    Placed about a month ago, time will tell...

    WB

     
    WB, Aug 12, 2003
    #9
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.