scholarly journals In Vitro Effect of Temperature on Dentin Bond Strength of Universal Adhesive Systems

2019 ◽  
pp. 253-261
Author(s):  
Serdar Akarsu DDS, PhD ◽  
Sultan Aktuğ Karademir DDS
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Effect Of Temperature ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Universal Adhesive ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Universal Adhesives ◽  
Vitro Effect

The aim of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of two universal adhesives (Universal Single Bond and All Bond Universal) and a two-step self-etch adhesive system (Clearfil SE Bond) to dentine at various temperatures. Materials and Methods: One hundred and twenty dentin specimens were divided randomly to 12 groups, according to adhesive systems (Universal Single Bond and All Bond Universal, Clearfil SE Bond)  and temperature  ( 4ºC, 20 ºC, 36ºC, 55ºC) used. Dentin specimens were prepared (n :10, adhesives were applied, and composite cylinders were polymerized. Statistical analysis of the SBS data was performed using Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s Honestly Significant Differences post-hoc test. Results: The Clearfil SE Bond was shown to have higher SBS than the universal adhesives at all temperatures; however, there was no statistically significant difference (P>0.05). In both groups, the lowest SBS values were observed in the samples at 4°C while the highest SBS values were observed in the samples at 55°C. In this case, there was a statistically significant difference (P<0.05). Conclusions: The results suggest that the effectiveness of an adhesive may increase if it is preheated at 36°C or above before use instead of being used immediately after removal from the refrigerator or at room temperature.

scholarly journals Influence of Different Etching Modes on Bond Strength to Enamel using Universal Adhesive Systems

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (10) ◽  
pp. 820-825 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mateus R Tonetto ◽  
Ana CS Diniz ◽  
Larissa M Pinheiro ◽  
Lauber J dos Santosh Almeida ◽  
Carlos RG Torres ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Statistical Tests ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Universal Adhesive ◽  
Universal System ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Self Etch

ABSTRACT Introduction The adhesive systems and the techniques currently used are designed to provide a more effective adhesion with reduction of the protocol application. The objective of this study was to evaluate the bond strength of universal adhesive systems on enamel in different etching modes (self-etch and total etch). Materials and methods The mesial and distal halves of 52 bovine incisors, healthy, freshly extracted, were used and divided into seven experimental groups (n = 13). The enamel was treated in accordance with the following experimental conditions: FUE-Universal System – Futurabond U (VOCO) with etching; FUWE – Futurabond U (VOCO) without etching; SB-Total Etch System – Single Bond 2 (3M); SBUE-Universal System – Single Bond Universal (3M ESPE) with etching; SBUWE – Single Bond Universal (3M ESPE) without etching; CLE-Self-etch System – Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray) was applied with etching; CLWE – Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray) without etching. The specimens were made using the composite spectrum TPH (Dentsply) and stored in distilled water (37 ± 1°C) for 1 month. The microshear test was performed using the universal testing machine EMIC DL 2000 with the crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/minute. The bond strength values were analyzed using statistical tests (Kruskal–Wallis test and Mann–Whitney test) with Bonferroni correction. Results There was no statistically significant difference between groups (p < 0.05), where FUE (36.83 ± 4.9 MPa) showed the highest bond strength values and SBUWE (18.40 ± 2.2 MPa) showed the lowest bond strength values. The analysis of adhesive interface revealed that most failures occurred between the interface composite resin and adhesive. Conclusion The universal adhesive system used in dental enamel varies according to the trademark, and the previous enamel etching for universal systems and the self-etch both induced greater bond strength values. Clinical significance Selective enamel etching prior to the application of a universal adhesive system is a relevant strategy for better performance bonding. How to cite this article Diniz ACS, Bandeca MC, Pinheiro LM, dos Santos Almeida LJr, Torres CRG, Borges AH, Pinto SCS, Tonetto MR, De Jesus Tavarez RR, Firoozmand LM. Influence of Different Etching Modes on Bond Strength to Enamel using Universal Adhesive Systems. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(10):820-825.

scholarly journals Microshear Bond Strength of Different Adhesive Systems to Dentin

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Valizadeh ◽  
Aida Moradi ◽  
Mansooreh Mirazei ◽  
Hooman Amiri ◽  
Mohammad Javad Kharazifard
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Microshear Bond Strength ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Composite Cylinders

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the microshear bond strength (µSBS) of various adhesive systems to dentin. Materials and Methods: In this in vitro experimental study, 60 sound human third molars were divided into four groups. Dentin discs were prepared of middle-third dentin measuring 4 mm in diameter and 2 mm in thickness. Dentin surfaces were bonded with one of the four types of adhesives: (A) Single Bond (3M ESPE), Scotchbond Universal (3M ESPE) in etch and rinse (B) and self-etch (C) modes and (D) Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray Noritake Dental). After the application of adhesive systems according to the manufacturers’ instructions, composite cylinders (Vit-l-escence) were bonded to dentin surfaces. The μSBS test was performed using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test (α=0.05). Results: The µSBS was the highest in self-etch Scotchbond Universal (15.8±6.08 MPa) followed by Clearfil SE Bond (15.24±4.6 MPa), etch and rinse Scotchbond Universal (11.68±4.07MPa) and Single Bond (11.24±3.74 MPa). A significant difference was only found between Single Bond and etch and rinse Scotchbond Universal groups (P=0.04). Conclusion: Based on the results of this study, application of Scotchbond Universal in self-etch mode provides a reliable bond to dentin.

scholarly journals Microshear Bond Strength of Different Adhesive Systems to Dentin

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Valizadeh ◽  
Aida Moradi ◽  
Mansooreh Mirazei ◽  
Hooman Amiri ◽  
Mohammad Javad Kharazifard
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Microshear Bond Strength ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Composite Cylinders

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the microshear bond strength (µSBS) of various adhesive systems to dentin. Materials and Methods: In this in vitro experimental study, 60 sound human third molars were divided into four groups. Dentin discs were prepared of middle-third dentin measuring 4 mm in diameter and 2 mm in thickness. Dentin surfaces were bonded with one of the four types of adhesives: (A) Single Bond (3M ESPE), Scotchbond Universal (3M ESPE) in etch and rinse (B) and self-etch (C) modes and (D) Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray Noritake Dental). After the application of adhesive systems according to the manufacturers’ instructions, composite cylinders (Vit-l-escence) were bonded to dentin surfaces. The μSBS test was performed using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test (α=0.05). Results: The µSBS was the highest in self-etch Scotchbond Universal (15.8±6.08 MPa) followed by Clearfil SE Bond (15.24±4.6 MPa), etch and rinse Scotchbond Universal (11.68±4.07MPa) and Single Bond (11.24±3.74 MPa). A significant difference was only found between Single Bond and etch and rinse Scotchbond Universal groups (P=0.04). Conclusion: Based on the results of this study, application of Scotchbond Universal in self-etch mode provides a reliable bond to dentin.

scholarly journals Influence of adhesive and bonding material on the bond strength of bracket to bovine tooth

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Bruna Lorena dos Santos Oliveira ◽  
Ana Rosa Costa ◽  
Américo Bortolazzo Correr ◽  
Marcus Vinicius Crepaldi ◽  
Lourenço Correr-Sobrinho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Acrylic Resin ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Universal Adhesive ◽  
Bonding Material ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Post Hoc ◽  
Group 1

Aim: To evaluate, in vitro, the effect of adhesive and bonding materials on the shear bond strength (SBS) of metallic brackets bonded to bovine teeth. Methods: Bovine teeth were embedded with acrylic resin, etched with 35% phosphoric acid for 20 s, rinsed, dried for 20 s and divided into 8 groups (n=20), according to the bonding materials and adhesive: Groups 1 and 5 – Transbond XT; Groups 2 and 6 – Fill Magic; Groups 3 and 7 – Biofix; and, Groups 4 and 8 – Orthocem. One layer of adhesive 3 M Unitek (Group 1), and one layer of Single Bond Universal Adhesive (Groups 2, 3 and 4) were applied and light-cured with LED for 10 s. Brackets were bonded to the buccal surface with four bonding materials and light-cured with LED for 40 s. SBS was carried out after 24 h and thermocycling (7,000 cycles - 5°/55 °C). Data were submitted to two way ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc test (α=0.05). The Adhesive Remaining Index (ARI) was evaluated at 8×. Results: The adhesive was effective in increasing the SBS for all bonding materials (p<0.05). Significant difference (p<0.05) on the SBS was observed between bonding materials with or without adhesive. The ARI showed a predominance of scores 0 for all groups. Conclusions: The adhesive improved significantly the SBS of the brackets to teeth. Different SBS values occurred among the bonding materials. ARI index showed predominance of score 0 for all groups.

scholarly journals Comparing Shear Bond Strength of Two Step vs One Step B onding Agents on Ground Enamel and Dentin: An in vitro Study

2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Shubhangi Mani ◽  
Darshan Deepak Shah ◽  
Narendra Manwar ◽  
Rushabh Malde
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Universal Adhesive ◽  
Bonding Agents ◽  
Ground Enamel ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
One Step

ABSTRACT Aim To compare the shear bond strength of Tetric N Bond (Ivoclar Vivadent) and Single Bond Universal Adhesive (3M ESPE, MN, USA) on ground enamel and dentin. Materials and methods A total of 30 extracted human maxillary and mandibular molars and premolars were used for this study and divided into two groups which were treated with Tetric N Bond (Ivoclar Vivaden) t- and Single Bond Universal Adhesive (3M ESPE, MN, USA). The shear bond strength was tested on Universal testing machine (Instron). Results There was statistically significant difference in the shear bond strength among the two groups. Conclusion Based on the results (Tetric N Bond, Ivoclar Vivadent) had higher bond strength than Single Bond Universal Adhesive (3M ESPE, MN, USA) on ground enamel and dentin. How to cite this article Shah DD, Chandak M, Manwar N, Mani S, Mani A, Saini R, Malde R. Comparing Shear Bond Strength of Two Step vs One Step Bonding Agents on Ground Enamel and Dentin: An in vitro Study. Int J Experiment Dent Sci 2014;3(1):1-3.

scholarly journals Effect of Different Adhesion Protocols on the Shear Bond Strength of Universal Adhesive Systems to Sound and Artificial Caries-Affected Dentin

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Omnia M. Sami ◽  
Essam A. Naguib ◽  
Rasha H. Afifi ◽  
Shaymaa M. Nagi
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Failure Modes ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Universal Adhesive ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Self Etch

Abstract Objective Bonding to different dentin substrates influences resin composite restoration outcomes. This study investigated the influence of different adhesion protocols on the shear bond strength of universal adhesive systems to sound and artificial caries-affected dentin (CAD). Materials and Methods Occlusal enamel of 80 premolars were wet grinded to obtain flat midcoronal dentin. Specimens were equally divided according to the substrate condition: sound and CAD by subjecting to pH-cycling for 14 days. Each dentin substrate was bonded with the adhesive systems used in this study: Single Bond universal adhesive or Prime&Bond universal (applied either in etch-and-rinse or self-etch adhesion protocol). Adhesive systems were utilized according to manufacturers’ instructions, then resin composite was built up. Specimens were tested for shear bond strength. The data were analyzed by three-way analysis of variance, and failure modes were determined using stereomicroscope. Results There was no statistically significant difference between the two tested adhesive systems on artificially created CAD with different adhesion protocols. On sound dentin, Single Bond universal, either in the etch-and-rinse or self-etch adhesion protocols, revealed higher statistically significant shear bond strength mean values compared with CAD. Conclusion Single Bond universal adhesive in an etch-and-rinse adhesion protocol improved only bonding to sound dentin, while no added positive effect for the etching step with Prime&Bond universal adhesive was found when bonded to both sound and CAD substrates. The influence of CAD on the performance of the universal adhesives was material-dependent.

Evaluation of the Bond Strength of Different Pulp Capping Materials to Dental Adhesive Systems: An In Vitro Study

2021 ◽  
pp. 232020682199798
Author(s):  
Sema Yazici Akbiyik ◽  
Elif Pınar Bakir ◽  
S¸eyhmus Bakir
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Pulp Capping ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Fracture Types ◽  
Self Etch

Aim: To evaluate the bond strengths of pulp capping materials (Dycal, ProRoot MTA, Biodentine, TheraCal LC, Calcimol LC, and ApaCal ART) and different adhesive systems (Gluma 2 Bond, Clearfil SE Protect, Gluma Self Etch, Clearfil S 3 Bond Plus, Gluma Bond Universal, Clearfil S 3 Bond Universal). Materials and Methods: Two hundred fifty-two acrylic blocks were prepared in which cylindrical cavities of 4 × 2 mm 3 were formed. Pulp capping materials were placed in the cavities. Different adhesive systems were applied to each pulp capping material group. After applying the composite resin, the shear bond strength (SBS) values of the specimens were determined in the Instron test device. Fracture types were evaluated using a stereomicroscope and a scanning electron microscope. Data were analyzed by Shapiro–Wilk’s and Kruskal–Wallis H test. Results: There is a statistically significant difference between pulp capping materials in terms of SBS values ( P < .05). Dycal’s SBS was found significantly lower than other materials, and the highest bond strength was observed in Calcimol LC material. Although there is no statistically significant difference ( P > .05) between the adhesive agent groups in terms of SBS, Gluma 2 Bond showed the highest bond strength value. Conclusion: In traditional pulp capping materials such as Dycal, MTA, and Biodentine, using a two-step self-etch adhesive system can result in higher bond strength values. In resin-based TheraCal LC,, ApaCal ART, and Calcimol LC materials, it may be recommended to use a two-step etch and rinse adhesive system.

Enamel Wetness Effects on Microshear Bond Strength of Different Bonding Agents (Adhesive Systems): An in vitro Comparative Evaluation Study

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 399-407
Author(s):  
Girish Kulkarni ◽  
Vinay K Mishra
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Evaluation Study ◽  
Enamel Surface ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Bonding Agents ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Post Hoc ◽  
Microshear Bond Strength

ABSTRACT Aims The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of enamel wetness on microshear bond strength using different adhesive systems. Objectives To evaluate microshear bond strength of three bonding agents on dry enamel; to evaluate microshear bond strength of three bonding agents on wet enamel; and to compare microshear bond strength of three different bonding agents on dry and wet enamel. Materials and methods Sixty extracted noncarious human premolars were selected for this study. Flat enamel surfaces of approximately 3 mm were obtained by grinding the buccal surfaces of premolars with water-cooled diamond disks. This study evaluated one etch-and-rinse adhesive system (Single Bond 2) and two self-etching adhesive systems (Clearfil SE Bond and Xeno-V). The specimens were divided into two groups (n = 30). Group I (dry) was air-dried for 30 seconds and in group II (wet) surfaces were blotted with absorbent paper to remove excess water. These groups were further divided into six subgroups (n = 10) according to the adhesives used. The resin composite, Filtek Z 250, was bonded to flat enamel surfaces that had been treated with one of the adhesives, following the manufacturer's instructions. After being stored in water at 37°C for 24 hours, bonded specimens were stressed in universal testing machine (Fig. 3) at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The data were evaluated with one-way and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), t-test, and Tukey's Multiple Post hoc tests (α = 0.05). Results The two-way ANOVA and Tukey's Multiple Post hoc tests showed significant differences among adhesive systems, but wetness did not influence microshear bond strength (p = 0.1762). The one-way ANOVA and t-test showed that the all-in-one adhesive (Xeno-V) was the only material influenced by the presence of water on the enamel surface. Xeno-V showed significantly higher microshear bond strength when the enamel was kept wet. Single Bond 2 adhesive showed significantly higher microshear bond strength as compared with Xeno-V adhesive but no significant difference when compared with Clearfil SE Bond adhesive in dry enamel. Single Bond 2 adhesive showed no significant difference in microshear bond strength as compared with self-etching adhesive systems (Clearfil SE Bond and Xeno-V), when the enamel was kept wet. Conclusion From the findings of the results, it was concluded that self-etching adhesives were not negatively affected by the presence of water on the enamel surface. Clinical significance The all-in-one adhesive showed different behavior depending on whether the enamel surface was dry or wet. So the enamel surface should not be desiccated, when self-etching adhesives are used. How to cite this article Kulkarni G, Mishra VK. Enamel Wetness Effects on Microshear Bond Strength of Different Bonding Agents (Adhesive Systems): An in vitro Comparative Evaluation Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(5):399-407.

scholarly journals Effect Of Chitosan Treatment On Shear Bond Strength Of Composite To Deep Dentin Using Self-Etch And Total-Etch Adhesive Systems

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fateme Vasei ◽  
Farahnaz Sharafeddin
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Self Etch

Objective: To assess the shear bond strength (SBS) of resin composite to deep dentin, using 1 and 2.5% chitosan pretreatment as well as different adhesive systems. Material and Methods: 80 human maxillary molars were randomly divided to eight groups according to the type of adhesive system and dentin pretreatment (n = 10): I) two-step self-etch system (Clearfil SE bond); II) two-step etch-andrinse system (Adper single bond 2); III) 2.5% chitosan + Clearfil SE bond; IV) 2.5% chitosan +etch + Adper single bond 2; V) etch + 2.5% chitosan + Adper single bond 2; VI) 1% chitosan + Clearfil SE bond; VII) 1% chitosan + etch + Adper single bond 2; VIII) etch + 1% chitosan + Adper single bond 2 (chitosan solution (w/v): 2.5 g and 1 g of chitosan (Sigma Aldrich, USA) was dissolved in 100 ml of 1% acetic acid). Plastic molds were positioned on dentin and filled with composite (Z350, 3M ESPE, USA). SBS (MPa) was tested using a universal testing machine. ANOVA tests, Tukey’s test, and independent t test were used to analyze data (p < 0.05). Results: The highest SBS value among self-etch groups was observed with 1% chitosan (p = 0.001). In the etch-and-rinse group, the SBS of 1% chitosan was significantly lower than the other groups. Chitosan treatment following acid etching led to higher SBS in comparison to when chitosan was applied before etching, with the significant difference in 1% concentration (p = 0.030). A predominance of mix fractures was observed in dentin. Conclusion: Improved dentin bond strength can be achieved through immediate dentin pretreatment with 1% chitosan in self-etch adhesive systems. Chitosan Pretreatment may not be advantageous for etch-and-rinse adhesive systems. Keywords Adhesive system; Chitosan; Deep dentin; Shear strength.

scholarly journals Bond strength of a composite resin to glass ionomer cements using different adhesive systems

2017 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 214-219
Author(s):  
Ana Carolina de Oliveira BECCI ◽  
Mônica de Souza BENETTI ◽  
Natália Bertolo DOMINGUES ◽  
Elisa Maria Aparecida GIRO
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Introduction Glass ionomer cements are often used as a base or cavity lining prior to restorative material. Objective To evaluate the bond strength of a composite resin to different glass ionomer cements, when using a two-step conventional and self-etching adhesive systems. Material and method Three glass ionomer cements (Ketac Molar Easymix, Vitremer and Vitrebond), the composite resin Filtek Z350 XT and the adhesive systems Adper Single Bond 2, Clearfil SE Bond and Adper Easy One were used. As negative control, resin was bonded to cement without using an adhesive system. Holes (4 mm diameter, 2 mm deep) prepared in acrilic bloks were filled with the glass ionomer cements (n=12/group). On the surface, an area of 1mm in diameter was delimited, the adhesive system was applied, and a specimen of composite resin with 1 mm height was made. After 24 hours storage (37 °C and 100% humidity), the microshear test was performed. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey test for comparison between groups (α=0.05). Result The adhesive systems significantly improved the bond strenght of composite resin to glass ionomer cements (p≤0.001). There was no significant difference in bond strength when self-etching adhesive systems were compared with the simplified etch-and-rinse adhesive, except for Vitrebond where Clearfil SE Bond determined higher bond strength when compared to Adper Single Bond 2 (p=0.003). Conclusion Self-etching adhesive systems are a good option for establishing the bond between the composite resin and the glass ionomer cement.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document