|
Title |
Carbides Chosen Over Diamonds When Using Self-Etch Bonding Agents |
Clinical Question |
For an adult patient needing a posterior composite restoration bonded with a (self-etch 6th or 7th generation) dentin bonding agent, would using a tungsten carbide bur offer a better dentinal surface for adhesive bonding than using a diamond bur? |
Clinical Bottom Line |
Carbide burs offer a better dentinal surface for adhesive bonding compared to diamond burs. (See Comments on the CAT below) |
Best Evidence |
(you may view more info by clicking on the PubMed ID link) |
PubMed ID |
Author / Year |
Patient Group |
Study type
(level of evidence) |
#1) 18652265 | Yiu/2008 | 50 extracted human 3rd molars | in vitro Comparative study | Key results | According to the study’s results section, the p-value is less than 0.001. In other words, the probability of getting a false positive is less than 0.001 and therefore, “the effects of dentin surface preparations, adhesive systems, and their interaction were statistically significant.” The study also showed that “the micro tensile bond strength was the highest when bonding Self Etchant to dentin surface prepared with 600-grit SiC abrasive paper (47.3 +/- 7.4 MPa), followed by high-speed tungsten carbide burs (40.8 +/- 6.1 MPa), and the lowest when bonding S3 to dentin surfaces prepared with a high-speed diamond bur (15.2 +/- 6.2 MPa).” | |
Evidence Search |
Search "Dentin-Bonding Agents"[Mesh] Search "Composite Resins"[Mesh]Search "tungsten carbide" [Supplementary Concept]"Diamond"[Mesh] |
Comments on
The Evidence |
This article is a comparative study done in the laboratory on extracted 3rd molars. |
Applicability |
This article is applicable to dentists choosing between using a diamond or carbide bur when working with patients needing a restoration preparation for use with a dentin bonding agent. |
Specialty/Discipline |
(General Dentistry) (Prosthodontics) (Restorative Dentistry) |
Keywords |
Adhesives, Composite Resins, Dental Bonding, Dentin-Bonding Agents
|
ID# |
787 |
Date of submission: |
04/04/2011 |
E-mail |
buimt@livemail.uthscsa.edu |
Author |
My Hanh Bui |
Co-author(s) |
|
Co-author(s) e-mail |
|
Faculty mentor/Co-author |
Rita Renee Parma, DDS |
Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail |
PARMA@uthscsa.edu |
Basic Science Rationale
(Mechanisms that may account for and/or explain the clinical question, i.e. is the answer to the clinical question consistent with basic biological, physical and/or behavioral science principles, laws and research?) |
post a rationale |
None available | |
|
Comments and Evidence-Based Updates on the CAT
(FOR PRACTICING DENTISTS', FACULTY, RESIDENTS and/or STUDENTS COMMENTS ON PUBLISHED CATs) |
post a comment |
by Rebeka Andrade and Petrina Gerogianni (San Antonio, TX) on 10/08/2014 A PubMed and TRIP database search conducted on September 2014, confirmed the aforementioned statement. However, two more recent publications were found to support the current statement: Marques MS, 2009, PMID: 19678451 and Ayad MF, 2011, PMID: 21874939, both in vitro comparative studies. The first study showed that a fine cut carbide bur provided the best combination of increased bond strength and decreased variability, indicative of more reliable bond strength performance. The second study confirmed that the micro-tensile bond strength values when using self-etch bonding agents, were significantly higher with tungsten carbide finishing burs and smooth dentin surfaces.
| |
|
|