Skip to content
6CCVD Research

Effect of six month storage on microtensile bond strength of new elective etching adhesive system on dentin in self-etching or etch-and-rinse approach

At a Glance

Section titled ā€œAt a Glanceā€
MetadataDetails
Publication Date2016-07-04
JournalThe Saudi Journal for Dental Research
AuthorsLeonardo Colombo Zeidan, AndrƩ Figueiredo Reis, Alessandra Cassoni, JosƩ Augusto Rodrigues
InstitutionsGuarulhos University
Citations5

Abstract

Section titled ā€œAbstractā€

The aim of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength (Ī¼TBS) to dentin of an elective etching adhesive system applied in etch-and-rinse (ER) or self-etching (SE) mode after 6-months of storage in water. Thirty-six caries-free, human third molars were collected and stored in a 0.1% thymol solution. Dentin surfaces were exposed by 600-grit silicon carbide paper and teeth were divided into six groups (n = 6), according to the adhesive systems: a 2-step SE system, Clearfil SE Bond (CSE); a 1-step SE adhesive Adper Prompt L-Pop (LPOP); Scotchbond Universal applied as a 1-step SE adhesive (SBU-SE) and applied as a 2-step ER adhesive (SBU-ER); and two 2-step ER adhesives: Adper Single Bond Plus (SBP) and Optibond Solo Plus (OSP). Composite build-ups were constructed with TPH3 and cured in three increments of 2 mm each. Specimens were sectioned with a slow-speed diamond saw under water in X and Y directions to obtain bonded beams that were tested to failure in tension at a crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/min after one week or 6 months of storage in water. Statistical analyses were computed using Repeated-Measures ANOVA and Fisherā€™s LSD Tests (Ī± = 0.05). There were no significant differences between 1-week and 6-months. SBU-ER and SBUSE showed the highest Ī¼TBS values and statistically differed from LPOP (Fisherā€™s LSD). The SBP, OSP, and CSE groups showed intermediary Ī¼TBS and did not differ statistically from SBU-ER, SBUSE or LPOP, which presented the lowest Ī¼TBS values. The use of elective etching adhesive system in dentin with the etch-and-rinse or self-etching approach did not compromise the bond strength and showed stable bonds after six months of storage in water.

Tech Support

Section titled ā€œTech Supportā€

Original Source

Section titled ā€œOriginal Sourceā€

References

Section titled ā€œReferencesā€
  1. 2008 - Dental adhesion review: aging and stability of the bonded interface [Crossref]
  2. 1999 - Microleakage of Class V resin-based composite restorations using five simplified adhesive systems
  3. 2009 - Can previous acid etching increase the bond strength of a self-etching primer adhesive to enamel? [Crossref]
  4. 2005 - A challenge to the conventional wisdom that simultaneous etching and resin infiltration always occurs in self-etch adhesives [Crossref]
  5. 2012 - Interaction morphology and bond strength of nanofilled simplified-step adhesives to acid etched dentin [Crossref]
  6. 2012 - Bonding effectiveness of a new ā€™multi-modeā€™ adhesive to enamel and dentine [Crossref]
  7. 1999 - Shear bond strength of hydrophilic adhesive systems to enamel
  8. 1999 - Tensile bond strength to and SEM evaluation of ground and intact enamel surfaces [Crossref]
  9. 2004 - Bonding to enamel and dentin using self-etching adhesive systems
  10. 2006 - New concept of resin-dentin interfacial adhesion: the nanointeraction zone [Crossref]

Reads Similar to This

Finite Element Analysis of Dental Diamond Burs - Stress Distribution in Dental Structures During Cavity Preparation Auxiliary UV light devices for removal of fluorescent resin residues after bracket debonding Dental abrasion as a cutting process