scholarly journals Bond Strength of Adhesive Systems with Different Solvents to Dry and Wet Dentin

2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daphne Câmara Barcellos ◽  
Carlos Rocha Gomes Torres ◽  
Melissa Aline da Silva ◽  
Patrícia Maria Rangel ◽  
Clovis Pagani
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Universal Testing Machine ◽  
Universal Testing ◽  
Microtensile Test ◽  
Adhesive Factor

ABSTRACT Aim This study evaluates bond strength between dentin and composite using adhesives with different solvents to dry and wet dentin. Materials and methods Ninety bovine incisors were used; the vestibular surfaces were worn by the exposure of an area with a diameter of 4 mm of dentin. The specimens were divided into 6 groups, according to the type of adhesive used and hydratation stals: Group SB-wet: Single Bond 2 in wet dentin, Group SBdry: Single Bond 2 in dry dentin, Group SL-wet: Solobond M in wet dentin, Group SL-dry: Solobond M in dentin dry. Group XPwet: XP Bond in wet dentin, Group XP-dry: XP Bond in dentin dry. They were cut to obtain specimens in the shape of stick with 1 × 1 mm and subjected to microtensile test in universal testing machine with a cross speed of 1mm/min. The data were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey's tests (5%). Results ANOVA showed significant differences for surface treatment and interaction, but no difference was found for adhesive factor. The Tukey's test showed that the samples with wet dentin shown higher values of bond strength. Conclusion The adhesive did not influence in the bond strength. The groups with wet dentin showed higher values of bond strength than groups with dry dentin. How to cite this article Silva MA, Rangel PM, Barcellos DC, Pagani C, Torres CRG. Bond Strength of Adhesive Systems with Different Solvents to Dry and Wet Dentin. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013;14(1):9-13.

scholarly journals Tensile bond strength of different adhesive systems to enamel and dentin

2007 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 124-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wanessa Christine Souza-Zaroni ◽  
Letícia Caliento Seixas ◽  
Juliane Cristina Ciccone-Nogueira ◽  
Daniela Thomazatti Chimello ◽  
Regina Guenka Palma-Dibb
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Analysis ◽  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Tensile Bond Strength ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Substrate Type ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Universal Testing

The aim of this study was to assess the tensile bond strength of four adhesive systems to enamel and dentin: Clearfil Liner Bond 2V - C, Prime&Bond NT/NRC - PB, Single Bond - SB and All Bond 2 -AB. For such purpose, 40 sound human molars were selected. Crowns were bisected in a mesiodistal direction and each half was ground until flat enamel (E) or dentin (D) surfaces were obtained. A total of 80 specimens were randomly assigned to 4 groups (n=20, 10 in enamel and 10 in dentin). After surface treatment, a composite resin (Z250; 3M) cone was prepared using a split Teflon® matrix. Bond strength was tested in an universal testing machine (0.5 mm/min). Bond strength means in MPa were: C - E: 18.66 (±2.67) and D: 21.62 (±5.29); PB - E: 18.13 (±2.96) and D: 3.19 (±1.40); SB - E: 20.06 (±6.11) and D: 16.95 (±2.57); AB - E: 18.20 (±3.94) and D: 15.94 (±4.72). Statistical analysis of data by two-way ANOVA showed that C presented the best results followed by SB. In conclusion, among the tested materials, Clearfil Liner Bond 2V self-etching primer adhesive syetem had the best performance. The substrate type influenced bond strength, being higher to enamel.

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.

scholarly journals Influence of CVD Diamond Tips and Er:YAG Laser Irradiation on Bonding of Different Adhesive Systems to Dentin

2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daphne Câmara Barcellos ◽  
Alessandra Buhler Borges ◽  
Cesar Rogério Pucci ◽  
Carlos Rocha Gomes Torres ◽  
Melissa Aline da Silva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Laser Irradiation ◽  
High Speed ◽  
Er:Yag Laser ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Cvd Diamond ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Yag Laser

ABSTRACT Aim The aim of this study was to compare the microtensile bond strength of three adhesive systems, using different methods of dentin preparation. Materials and methods A hundred and eight bovine teeth were used. The dentin from buccal face was exposed and prepared with three different methods, divided in 3 groups: Group 1 (DT)- diamond tip on a high-speed handpiece; Group 2 (CVD)-CVD tip on a ultrasonic handpiece; Group 3 (LA)-Er: YAG laser. The teeth were divided into 3 subgroups, according adhesive systems used: Subgroup 1-Adper Single Bond Plus/3M ESPE (SB) total-etch adhesive; Subgroup 2-Adper Scotchbond SE/3M ESPE (AS) selfetching adhesive; Subgroup 3-Clearfil SE Bond/Kuraray (CS) selfetching adhesive. Blocks of composite (Filtek Z250–3M ESPE) 4 mm high were built up and specimens were stored in deionized water for 24 hours at 37°C. Serial mesiodistal and buccolingual cuts were made and stick-like specimens were obtained, with transversal section of 1.0 mm2. The samples were submitted to microtensile test at 1 mm/min and load of 10 kg in a universal testing machine. Data (MPa) were subjected to ANOVA and Tukey's tests (p < 0.05). Results and conclusion Surface treatment with Diamond or CVD tips associated with Clearfil SE Bond adhesive produced significantly lower bond strength values compared to other groups. Surface treatment with Er: YAG laser associated with Single Bond Plus or Clearfil SE Bond adhesives and surface treatment with CVD tip associated with Adper Scotchbond SE adhesive produced significantly lower bond strength values compared to surface treatment with diamond or CVD tips associated with Single Bond Plus or Adper Scotchbond SE adhesives. Clinical significance Interactions between laser and the CVD tip technologies and the different adhesive systems can produce a satisfactory bonding strength result, so that these associations may be beneficial and enhance the clinical outcomes. How to cite this article Silva MA, Di Nicolo R, Barcellos DC, Batista GR, Pucci CR, Torres CRG, Borges AB. Influence of CVD Diamond Tips and Er:YAG Laser Irradiation on Bonding of Different Adhesive Systems to Dentin. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013;14(1):14-20.

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)

The Influence of Specimen Grips on the Measurement of Micro-Tensile Bond Strength to Human Dentin

2011 ◽  
Vol 492 ◽  
pp. 18-23
Author(s):  
Xin Yi Zhao ◽  
Shi Bao Li ◽  
Xu Gong
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Tensile Bond Strength ◽  
Cohesive Failure ◽  
Universal Testing Machine ◽  
Crosshead Speed ◽  
Adhesive Interface ◽  
Universal Testing ◽  
Multiple Beams ◽  
Human Dentin

To evaluate the effects of specimen grips on the measurement of the micro-tensile bond strength (mTBS) to dentin. Methods: Twelve extracted human molars were sectioned to expose mid-coronal dentin. Each surface was ground with 600-grit SiC paper. Four adhesives: Prime & Bond NT (Dentsply, USA), Contex (DMG, German), Adper Prompt (3M/ESPE, USA) and Clearfil S3Bond (Kuraray, Japan) were applied to the polished surfaces followed by creation of composite buildups. After 24 hr storage in 37°C water, the teeth were sectioned perpendicular to the adhesive interface to produce multiple beams of composite-bonded dentin, approximately 0.8 mm2in cross-sectioned area. Half of the specimens were attached to testing grips A which did not contain positioning pins and another half were attached to the testing grips B which contained positioning pins. All specimens were tested using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/min. Results: Specimens tested using the grips A presented lower mTBS than using the grips B (P<0.01). Many specimens tested using the grips A showed mix failure or cohesive failure within composite, and most of the failures were adhesive for specimens tested using the grips A. Conclusion: Specimen grips without positioning pins cannot accurately present mTBS and the grips with positioning pins can more accurately present mTBS.

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 system and bevel preparation on fracture strength of teeth restored with composite resin

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 327-331 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fábio Herrmann Coelho-de-Souza ◽  
Analice da Cunha Rocha ◽  
Alessandro Rubini ◽  
Celso Afonso Klein-Júnior ◽  
Flávio Fernando Demarco
Keyword(s):  
Fracture Strength ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Butt Joint ◽  
Fracture Pattern ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Exact Test ◽  
Universal Testing

The aim of this study was to evaluate the fracture strength of teeth with different cavosurface margin cavity preparations and restored with composite resin and different adhesive systems. Eighty premolars were randomly divided in 8 groups, as follow: G1- sound teeth; G2- MOD preparation (no restoration); G3- Adper Single Bond without bevel preparation (butt joint); G4- Adper Single Bond with bevel preparation; G5- Adper Single Bond with chamfer preparation; G6- Clearfil SE Bond without bevel (butt joint); G7- Clearfil SE Bond with bevel preparation; G8- Clearfil SE Bond with chamfer preparation. The adhesive systems were applied according to manufacturers’ instructions. Composite resin (Filtek Z250) was incrementally placed in all cavities. After 24 h, the specimens were tested in a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Data were analyzed statistically by ANOVA and Tukey’s test (fracture strength) and Fisher’s exact test (fracture pattern). The confidence level was set at 95% for all tests. Prepared and non-restored teeth showed the worst performance and G4 exhibited the highest fracture strength among all groups (p<0.05). In conclusion, all restorative treatments were able to recover the fracture strength of non-restored teeth to levels similar to those of sound teeth. Using a total-etch adhesive system with bevel preparation significantly improved the resistance to fracture.

Effect of Adhesive Boosters on Bond Strength of Bleached Teeth in Orthodontic Bonding

2021 ◽  
pp. 030157422110044
Author(s):  
I Ranganayakulu ◽  
D Praveen Kumar Varma ◽  
Padma Priya CV ◽  
RSVM Raghu Ram ◽  
K Anand Viswanadh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Orthodontic Brackets ◽  
Carbamide Peroxide ◽  
Universal Testing Machine ◽  
Universal Testing ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Maxillary Premolars ◽  
And Control

Objectives: To evaluate and compare the effect of adhesion boosters on shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets on bleached teeth. Materials and Methods: A sample of 90 extracted maxillary premolars was equally divided into 2 groups of bleached and non-bleached teeth. Twenty-two percent carbamide peroxide gel was used as an agent for bleaching. Each group was further divided equally into 3 subgroups depending on the type of adhesive booster used (Enhance LC, All-bond 2, and no adhesive booster [control]) and maxillary premolars brackets were bonded. Debonding was done with a universal testing machine, and the SBS was recorded. Results: The SBS of non-bleached teeth was highest for All-bond 2 (14.78 ± 2.47 MPa) followed by Enhance LC (13.15 ± 3.49 MPa) and control (10.30 ± 1.06 MPa). The SBS of bleached teeth was highest for All bond 2 (12.23 ± 1.41 MPa) followed by Enhance LC (11.76 ± 1.71 MPa) and control (9.63 ± 1.06 MPa). All subgroups showed a significant difference in SBS (P = .000) on bleached and non-bleached teeth. The SBS showed a significant difference between the bleached and non-bleached teeth in All-bond 2 group (P = .019). Conclusion: Adhesive boosters increased the SBS of both bleached and non-bleached teeth significantly. Among the two adhesive boosters used, All-bond 2 showed more SBS values.

scholarly journals Do Products Preventing Demineralization Around Orthodontic Brackets Affect Adhesive Bond Strength?

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 1029-1035
Author(s):  
Bennett T. Amaechi ◽  
Kaveh Najibfard ◽  
Irene P. Chedjieu ◽  
Hariyali Kasundra ◽  
Linda O. Okoye
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Adhesive Bond ◽  
Orthodontic Brackets ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Lesion Formation ◽  
Universal Testing ◽  
Priming Enamel ◽  
Resin Sealant

Objective: This study investigated the effects, on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets, of using an antimicrobial selenium-containing sealant (DenteShieldTM) to serve dual functions of priming enamel prior to bonding and as a protective barrier against whitespot lesion formation. Materials and Methods: A total of 150 extracted human premolars were randomly assigned into 10 groups (n=15/group). Stainless steel brackets were bonded with two adhesive systems (DenteShieldTM or Transbond XT) after the enamel was conditioned with a primer (DenteShieldTM or Assure Universal) or a filled resin sealant (DenteShieldTM, Pro SealTM or Opal SealTM). The specimens were stored in deionized water at 37 °C for 24 hours and debonded with a universal testing machine. Results: The use of DenteShieldTM adhesive to bond orthodontic brackets to the enamel surface resulted in a significantly lower (P<0.05), but clinically acceptable, shear bond strength (mean & SD: 14.5±1.6 MPa) as compared with Transbond XT group (mean & SD: 19.3±1.7 MPa). DenteShieldTM sealant used as primer resulted in shear bond strength values comparable to those of Pro SealTM and Opal SealTM. All adhesive-sealant and primer-sealant combinations tested in this study exhibited shear bond strength values greater than 9.6 MPa, sufficient for clinical orthodontic needs. Conclusion: DenteShieldTM sealant can serve as primer as well as anti-demineralization sealant during orthodontic treatment without adversely affecting the shear bond strength of the bracket.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document