Microtensile Bond Strength of Contemporary Adhesives to Primary Enamel and Dentin

2007 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcela Marquezan ◽  
Bruno Lopes da Silveira ◽  
Luizb Henrique Burnett Jr ◽  
Célia Regina Martins Delgado Rodrigues ◽  
Paulo Floriani Kramer
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Primary Teeth ◽  
Tooth Enamel ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Primary Tooth ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Significant Difference

The purpose of this study was to assess bond strength of three self-etching and two total-etch adhesive systems bonded to primary tooth enamel and dentin. Materials and methods: Forty extracted primary human molars were selected and abraded in order to create flat buccal enamel and occlusal dentin surfaces. Teeth were assigned to one of the adhesive systems: Adper Scotch Bond Multi Purpose, Adper Single Bond 2,Adper Prompt L-Pop, Clearfil SE Bond and AdheSE. Imediately to adhesive aplication, a composite resin(Filtek Z250) block was built up. After 3 months of water storage, each sample was sequentially sectioned in order to obtain sticks with a square cross-sectional area of about 0.72 mm2. The specimens were fixed lengthways to a microtensile device and tested using a universal testing machine with a 50-N load cell at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Microtensile bond strength values were recorded in MPa and compared by Analysis of Variance and the post hoc Tukey test (a=0.05). Results: In enamel, Clearfil SE Bond presented the highest values, followed by Adper Single Bond 2, AdheSE and Adper Scotch Bond Multi Purpose, without significant difference. The highest values in dentin were obtained with Adper Scotch Bond Multi Purpose and all other adhesives did not present significant different values from that, except Adper Prompt L-Pop that achieved the lowest bond strength in both substrates. Adper Scotch Bond Multi Purpose and Adper Single Bond 2 presented significantly lower values in enamel than in dentin although all other adhesives presented similar results in both substrates. Conclusions: contemporary adhesive systems present similar behaviors when bonded to primary teeth, with the exception of the one-step self-etching system; and selfetching systems can achieve bond strength values as good in enamel as in dentin of primary teeth.

scholarly journals Microtensile Bond Strength of Polyacid-modified Composite Resin to Irradiated Primary Molars

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-195
Author(s):  
Yucel Yilmaz ◽  
Sultan Keles ◽  
Orhan Sezen
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Primary Teeth ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Tooth Enamel ◽  
Primary Tooth ◽  
Primary Molars ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Tooth Dentin

ABSTRACT Aim This study evaluated the influence of various doses of radiotherapy on the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of compomer resin to dentin and enamel in primary molars. Materials and methods Thirty-five intact primary molars were collected and divided into seven groups. Teeth were irradiated with doses from 10 to 60 Gy, except for the control group. Compomer restorations were performed, and enamel—compomer resin beams and dentin—compomer resin beams were tested at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Results No statistically significant difference was found between the irradiated tooth enamel and the control group (F = 1.1468; p = 0.194). However, statistically significant differences were evident among the dentin groups (F = 11.050; p < 0.001). Conclusion Radiation may not cause a significant difference in the μTBS of compomer resin to primary tooth enamel, but appears to dose dependently decrease its bond strength to primary tooth dentin. Clinical significance Radiotherapy may affect the success rate of compomer fillings in primary teeth, especially in deeper cavities with exposed dentin. How to cite this article Keles S, Yilmaz Y, Sezen O. Microtensile Bond Strength of Polyacid-modified Composite Resin to Irradiated Primary Molars. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018;19(2):189-195.

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.

In Vitro Evaluation of Onlay Restorations on Primary Teeth

2017 ◽  
Vol 40 (12) ◽  
pp. 709-713
Author(s):  
Kadriye G.U. Güzel ◽  
Ayşe C. Altun ◽  
Zuhal Kirzioğlu
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Primary Teeth ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Permanent Teeth ◽  
Primary Tooth ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Bond Strengths ◽  
Materials Used

Purpose Many novel materials have been developed such as composite resin, ceramic, zircon or metal-supported ceramic for use in aesthetic restoration of primary teeth and permanent teeth with extensive crown damage. The aim of the present study was to compare microtensile bond strengths on materials using the microtensile bond strength test. Materials and methods The microtensile bond strength on the primary tooth dentin was measured on extracted primary teeth using an indirect method and fracture patterns were evaluated. Results The analysis of bond strengths using the Mann-Whitney U-test did not show significant difference between the rank averages of the compomer and composite resin (p = 0.741). The dentin sections, from which test samples were obtained, contributed to the bond strength; dentin samples obtained just above the pulp had lower bond strength, and the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.005). The adhesive type fracture was the most prevalent fracture type for both materials. Conclusions When the chemical, physiological, and micromorphological differences between primary and permanent teeth are taken into consideration, the success of the materials used for restorations can be different between primary and permanent teeth. Therefore, materials used in the dentistry must be evaluated separately for primary teeth.

scholarly journals Effect of Different Bonding Strategies on Adhesion to Deep and Superficial Permanent Dentin

2010 ◽  
Vol 04 (02) ◽  
pp. 110-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael Eduardo Fernandes Pegado ◽  
Flávia Lucisano Botelho do Amaral ◽  
Flávia Martão Flório ◽  
Roberta Tarkany Basting
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Universal Testing ◽  
One Step ◽  
The One

Objectives: To evaluate the effect of different bonding strategies on the microtensile bond strength to deep and superficial permanent dentin.Methods: Forty-eight teeth were randomly flattened according to the dentin depth: superficial dentin (SD) and deep dentin (DD). Subsequently, three adhesive systems were applied (n=8): an etchand- rinse (Adper Single Bond 2 - SB), a “mild” two-step self-etching (Clearfil SE Bond - SE) and a one-step self-etching adhesive system (Futurabond – FB). Each specimen was restored with a composite resin and sectioned into 1.0-mm2 thick slabs. After 24 hours, resin-dentin sticks were submitted to tensile stress in a universal testing machine (0.5 mm/min). Data were submitted to two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test at a level of 0.05%.Results: Superficial dentin showed the highest microtensile bond strength values, which differed statistically from those obtained in the deep dentin, irrespective of the adhesive system used. FB yielded the highest bond strength values, which were statistically similar to the bond strength values of SE, but statistically different from those obtained when the SB adhesive was used.Conclusions: Bond strength obtained in superficial dentin was significantly higher than in deep dentin, for all adhesive systems tested. Adhesion was affected by the different bonding strategies: the one-step, low pH, acetone-based self-etching adhesive promoted the higher bond strength values, which were statistically similar to those obtained with the two-step, water-based self-etching adhesive. (Eur J Dent 2010;4:110-117)

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 Effect of ridge lap surface treatment and thermocycling on microtensile bond strength of acrylic teeth to denture base resins

2009 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolina de Andrade Lima Chaves ◽  
Rômulo Rocha Regis ◽  
Ana Lucia Machado ◽  
Raphael Freitas de Souza
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Denture Base ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Base Resin ◽  
Artificial Teeth ◽  
Polymer Type

This study evaluated the effect of denture base polymer type (heat- and microwave-polymerized), ridge lap surface treatment (with and without methyl methacrylate-MMA etching) and thermocycling on the microtensile bond strength (µTBS) of Biotone acrylic teeth. Flat-ground, ridge-lap surface of posterior artificial teeth were bonded to cylinders of each denture base resin, resulting in the following groups (n=6): G1a - Clássico/with MMA etching; G1b - Clássico/without MMA etching; G2a - OndaCryl/with MMA etching; G2b - OndaCryl/without MMA etching. Rectangular bar specimens with a cross-sectional area of 1 mm² were prepared. Half of the bars in each group were thermocycled (5,000 cycles between 4ºC and 60ºC). µTBS testing was performed in an universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Data were analyzed statistically by three-way ANOVA (α=0.05). There was no statisticaly significant difference (p>0.05) for the factors (resin, surface treatment,and thermocycling) or their interactions. The mean µTBS values (MPa) and standard deviations were as follows: Thermocycling - G1a: 41.00 (14.00); G1b: 31.00 (17.00); G2a: 50.00 (27.00); G2b: 40.00 (18.00); No thermocycling - G1a: 37.00 (14.00); G1b: 43.00 (25.00); G2a: 43.00 (14.00); G2b: 40.00 (27.00). The µTBS of Biotone artificial teeth to the denture base acrylic resins was not influenced by the polymer type, surface treatment or thermocycling.

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 Effect of Tannic Acid on Bond Strength of Etch and Rinse and Self-etch Adhesive Systems in Dentin of Primary Teeth

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-38
Author(s):  
Mojtaba Abdollahi ◽  
Masoumeh Ebrahimi ◽  
Alireza Sarraf Shirazi ◽  
Faraneh Abdolhoseinpour
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Tannic Acid ◽  
Primary Teeth ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
T Test ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Primary Molar ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Self Etch

ABSTRACT Introduction One of the possible mechanisms for the gradual destruction of bond strength in dentin-resin interface, could be due to the demineralized unstable collagen matrix. Use of protease inhibitors, such as tannic acid (TA) could prevent destruction of collagen fibers. The aim of this study was to compare the TA effect on bond strength of etch and rinse and self-etch adhesive systems in the dentin of primary teeth. Materials and methods This in vitro study was done on 40 extracted primary molar teeth. The teeth were sectioned in the mesiodistal direction, and enamel of buccal and lingual surfaces was removed. Samples were randomly divided into four groups: Single bond (SB) + TA, SB, Clearfil SE Bond (CSB) + TA, and CSB. Then, Z250 and Clearfil AP-X composites were cured on the surfaces of SB and CSB groups respectively. After that, all samples were divided into aging and non-aging groups. For 3 months, samples were placed under 1,000 thermal cycles in aging group. Subsequently, the shear bond strengths of all groups were measured by the International testing machine, and failure mode was evaluated by an optical stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed with paired t-test and independent t-test. Results Tannic acid induced a significant reduction in the immediate bond strength of adhesive SB. Meanwhile, TA had no significant effect on shear bond strength of the CSB system. Conclusion Based on our findings, use of TA is not recommended with SB and CSB adhesives on primary teeth. Clinical significance Tannic acid may not be considered in resin restorations of primary teeth. How to cite this article Ebrahimi M, Sarraf Shirazi A, Abdolhoseinpour F, Abdollahi M. Effect of Tannic Acid on Bond Strength of Etch and Rinse and Self-etch Adhesive Systems in Dentin of Primary Teeth. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017;18(1):34-38.

scholarly journals Bond strength to dentin of total-etch and self-etch adhesive systems

2014 ◽  
Vol 62 (4) ◽  
pp. 365-370 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ricardo Alves dos SANTOS ◽  
Eliane Alves de LIMA ◽  
Mônica Maria de Albuquerque PONTES ◽  
Alexandre Batista Lopes do NASCIMENTO ◽  
Marcos Antônio Japiassú Resende MONTES ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Healthy Human ◽  
Universal Testing ◽  
Stereo Microscope ◽  
Diamond Disc ◽  
Self Etch

OBJECTIVE: To assess the bond strength to dentin of the Single Bond (3M ESPE) and XP Bond (Dentsply) total-etch and Adper SE Plus (3M ESPE) self-etch adhesive systems. METHODS: Fifteen healthy human third molars were randomly allocated across three different groups of five teeth each according to the adhesive system. The occlusal portion of each tooth was removed under refrigeration using a flexible diamond disc (EXTEC, Enfield, CT, USA) down to an area of dentin that did not reveal enamel, as confirmed under a 40X stereo microscope (Ramsor, São Paulo, Brazil). A standardized smear layer was created with #600 grit silicon-carbide paper. The adhesive systems were applied as per manufacturer recommendations, with the exception of the Adper SE Plus system, which was triple-polymerized. Composite resin blocks (5 mm) were placed on the dentin surface. The specimens were stored in distilled water for 24 hours at 37ºC. Using a flexible diamond disc (EXTEC, Enfield, CT, USA), toothpick-like specimens with an adhesive area of less than 1 mm² were obtained. A microtensile bond test was then carried out using a universal testing machine (KRATOS) with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's test were used for comparisons. RESULTS: The bond strength values obtained with each adhesive system were as follows: XP Bond, 96.24 MPa; Adper Single Bond, 72.39 MPa; Adper SE Plus, 49.91 MPa. CONCLUSION: In terms of bond strength to dentin, conventional adhesives outperform self-etching systems.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document