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

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.

Download Full-text

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

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice ◽

10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1261 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 14 (1) ◽

pp. 9-13 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

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.

Download Full-text

Tensile bond strength of different adhesive systems to enamel and dentin

Brazilian Dental Journal ◽

10.1590/s0103-64402007000200007 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 18 (2) ◽

pp. 124-128 ◽

Cited By ~ 10

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.

Download Full-text

Influence of Diamond Sono-Abrasion, Air-Abrasion and Er:YAG Laser Irradiation on Bonding of Different Adhesive Systems to Dentin

European Journal of Dentistry ◽

10.1055/s-0039-1698332 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 01 (03) ◽

pp. 158-166 ◽

Cited By ~ 25

Author(s):

Marcelo Tavares de Oliveira ◽

Patrícia Moreira de Freitas ◽

Carlos de Paula Eduardo ◽

Glaucia Maria Bovi Ambrosano ◽

Marcelo Giannini

Keyword(s):

Bond Strength ◽

Surface Treatment ◽

Laser Irradiation ◽

Er:Yag Laser ◽

Adhesive Systems ◽

Air Abrasion ◽

Hybrid Layer ◽

Bonding Agents ◽

Significance Level ◽

Etch And Rinse

ABSTRACTObjectives: Different surface treatments may affect bonding performance of adhesive systems to dentin. This study evaluated the influence of different methods of surface treatment on adhesion of bonding agents to dentin.Methods: TDentin surfaces abraded with #600-grit SiC paper were used as control. Three methods of surface treatment (sono-abrasion, air-abrasion and Er:YAG laser irradiation) were used under specific parameters. Four adhesive systems (Tyrian, Clearfil SE Bond, Unifil Bond and Single Bond) were applied to treated surfaces, according to the manufacturers’ instructions. Composite blocks were built on bonded surfaces, then restored teeth were vertically and serially sectioned to obtain bonded slices for interfacial micromorphologic analysis or to produce beam specimens for μ-TBS bond test. Data were analyzed with two-way ANOVA and Tukey test at a significance level of 5%.Results: The results indicated that the preparation of dentin with sono-abrasion or laser did not affect the bond strength, while the preparation of dentin with SiC paper and air-abrasion influenced the bond strength for some systems. A clear difference of the preparation of dentin surfaces and formation of hybrid layer and resin tags were noted.Conclusions: Bonding effectiveness of both the etch-and-rinse and the self-etch adhesives can be influenced by different methods of dentin preparation. (Eur J Dent 2007;1:158-166)

Download Full-text

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

RGO - Revista Gaúcha de Odontologia ◽

10.1590/1981-8637201400040000022648 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 62 (4) ◽

pp. 365-370 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

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.

Download Full-text

Effects of the combination of Er:YAG laser and sandblasting on the shear bond strength between zirconia and resin cement

Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences ◽

10.20396/bjos.v18i0.8656586 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 18 ◽

pp. e191449

Author(s):

Urias Silva Vasconcelos ◽

Thalisson Saymo de Oliveira Silva ◽

Daylana Pacheco da Silva ◽

Graciela Maria Oliveira Sipaúba ◽

Valdimar da Silva Valente ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Shear Strength ◽

Bond Strength ◽

Aluminum Oxide ◽

Surface Treatment ◽

Laser Irradiation ◽

Er:Yag Laser ◽

Resin Cement ◽

Zirconia Ceramic ◽

Control Group ◽

Luting Cement

Aim: This study was conducted to determine the bond strength between zirconia ceramic and resin luting cement according to the type of surface treatment applied. Methods: Sixty zirconia cylinders measuring 4 x 4 mm were manufactured and distributed into five experimental groups and a control group (n = 10): G1 - sandblasting with 110 μm aluminum oxide; G2 - sandblasting with 30 μm Rocatec Soft®; G3 - Er:YAG laser irradiation at 400 mJ; G4 - Er:YAG laser combined with sandblasting with aluminum oxide; G5 - Er:YAG laser combined with sandblasting with Rocatec Soft®; G6 - no treatment (Control). The zirconia cylinders were bonded in the center of composite resin cylinders (6 mm diameter) using RelyX Ultimate® cement. Shear strength was measured after thermocycling (6000 cycles and 5-55° C). Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc with a 5% significance level. Results: Group 4 had a significantly higher shear strength than all the other groups, except Group 1. Group 3 had a significantly lower shear strength compared with Groups 1 and 4. Conclusion: Sandblasting with 110μm aluminum oxide particles after laser irradiation may be an effective zirconia surface treatment. The use of Er: YAG laser alone is not effective at increasing the bond between resin cement and zirconia.

Download Full-text

Microshear Bond Strength of Different Adhesive Systems to Dentin

Frontiers in Dentistry ◽

10.18502/fid.v16i4.2085 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

Microshear Bond Strength of Different Adhesive Systems to Dentin

Frontiers in Dentistry ◽

10.18502/fid.v14i4.2085 ◽

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

Download Full-text

Microtensile Bond Strength of Contemporary Adhesives to Primary Enamel and Dentin

Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry ◽

10.17796/jcpd.32.2.l512r1p807w54582 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 32 (2) ◽

pp. 127-132 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

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.

Download Full-text

CVD and diamond tips: can then influence the bond strength of a total-etch adhesive to dentin?

Brazilian Dental Science ◽

10.14295/bds.2016.v19i2.1249 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 19 (2) ◽

pp. 89

Author(s):

Daphne Camara Barcellos ◽

Schirlei De Carvalho Rocha ◽

César Rogério Pucci ◽

Clovis Pagani ◽

Dimas Renó de Lima

Keyword(s):

Bond Strength ◽

Surface Treatment ◽

High Speed ◽

Testing Machine ◽

Etching Time ◽

Microtensile Bond Strength ◽

Mechanical Cycling ◽

Microtensile Test ◽

Group 2 ◽

Group 1

Data (MPa) were analyzed by two-way ANOVA (Surface treatment X Etching time) and Tukey's test (5%). Results and conclusions: Surface treatment with CVD tips (27.70 ± 4.04a) produced significantly higher bond strength values compared to diamond tips (23.96 ± 5.83b), and 5 second etching time on dentin produced similar bond strength values when compared to 10 and 15 second etching times. Objectives: Evaluate the microtensile bond strength of a total-etch adhesive to dentin, using a CVD tip and a diamond tip to use in dentin preparation and varying the etching time. Material and method: The dentin from the buccal face of sixty bovine teeth was exposed and prepared using two different methods (n=30): Group 1 (DT) – a diamond tip on a high-speed handpiece; and Group 2 (CVD) – a CVD tip on an ultrasonic handpiece. Each group used 37% phosphoric acid and was divided into three subgroups, according to the etching time (n=10): Subgroup 5 - 5 seconds; Subgroup 10 - 10 seconds; and Subgroup 15 - 15 seconds. The teeth were restored with Single Bond adhesive and the composite resin Herculite Classic. The specimens were subjected to thermomechanical wear (mechanical cycling/100.000 cycles, thermal cycling/1.000 cycles). Stick-like specimens were obtained and submitted to a microtensile test in a universal testing machine.

Download Full-text

Bond strength repair of a bulk-fill composite using different adhesive systems and resin composites

Research Society and Development ◽

10.33448/rsd-v10i5.14951 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 (5) ◽

pp. e31410514951

Author(s):

Mariana Sati Cantalejo Tsutsumi ◽

Terezinha Fatima de Souza ◽

Victor Eduardo de Souza Batista ◽

Larissa Sgarbosa de Araújo Matuda ◽

Paulo Henrique dos Santos ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Bond Strength ◽

Resin Composite ◽

Testing Machine ◽

Surface Roughening ◽

Control Group ◽

Resin Composites ◽

Single Bond ◽

Adhesive Systems ◽

Repair Procedure ◽

Ultimate Bond Strength

In this study evaluated the effect of different adhesive systems and resin composites on the microtensile bond strength of repairs using a bulk-fill composite. Ninety specimens were prepared using a half-hourglass mold of composite Filtek Bulk Fill using a silicone matrix. Specimens were randomly distributed in 9 experimental groups (n=10) according to adhesive [Universal Single Bond (SBU), Scotchbond Multipurpose Adhesive (SBMP), and Single Bond 2 (SB2)] and resin composite (Filtek Bulk Fill, Aura Bulk Fill, and Filtek Z250). For control group, hourglass specimens were used to measure the ultimate bond strength. Specimens were submitted to thermal cycling (5,000 cycles, 5 and 55°C, 30s) to simulate the aging of restoration and then the repair procedure was performed. After the diamond-tipped surface roughening to be repaired, the adhesive protocol was performed according to group, the specimen was placed in an hourglass-shaped mold and the other half was filled with the repair composite. After 24h, bond strength of specimens was obtained by microtensile using a universal testing machine at a speed of 0.5mm/min. Data were statistically analyzed by two-way ANOVA, Tukey’s and Dunnett’s tests (α=0.05). SBU showed higher bond strength compared to SB2, while SBMP showed intermediate values. However, all experimental groups showed lower bond strength compared to ultimate bond strength. In conclusion, bulk-fill composite repair using universal or conventional solvent-free adhesive improved the adhesion independent of composite tested.

Download Full-text