ObjectivesThe aims of this study were to evaluate the effect of resin composite (Filtek Z250 and Filtek Flow Z350) and adhesive system [(Solobond Plus, Futurabond NR (VOCO) and Adper Single Bond (3M ESPE)] on the microtensile (µTBS) and microshear bond strength (µSBS) tests on enamel, and to correlate the bond strength means between them. Material and methodsThirty-six extracted human molars were sectioned to obtain two tooth halves: one for µTBS and the other one for µSBS. Adhesive systems and resin composites were applied to the enamel ground surfaces and light-cured. After storage (37ºC/24 h) specimens were stressed (0.5 mm/ min). Fracture modes were analyzed under scanning electron microscopy. The data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α=0.05). ResultsThe correlation between tests was estimated with Pearson's product-moment correlation statistics (α =0.05). For both tests only the main factor resin composite was statistically significant (p<0.05). The correlation test detected a positive (r=0.91) and significant (p=0.01) correlation between the tests. ConclusionsThe results were more influenced by the resin type than by the adhesives. Both microbond tests seem to be positive and linearly correlated and can therefore lead to similar conclusions.

Little is known about the effect of specimen preparation and testing protocols on the micro-shear bond strength (μSBS) results. To evaluate whether variations in polyethylene rod use affect (μSBS)). Human dentin disks were randomly distributed into six groups (n = 5): polyethylene tube (3 levels) and adhesive system (2 levels). In Group 1, polyethylene tubes filled with polymerized composite) were placed on adhesive covered surfaces. Tubes were removed 24 h after water storage, leaving the rods only. In Group 2, the same procedure was performed; however, tubes were kept in place during testing. In Group 3, composite rods without tubes were placed on adhesive covered dentin. In all groups, adhesives were photoactivated after positioning filled tubes/rods on adhesive covered surfaces. Specimens were tested under shear mode and the data subjected to a two-way ANOVA and Tukey's tests. Groups 1 and 2 resulted in statistically similar mean μSBS (P > 0.05); however, a greater number of pretest failures were observed for Group 1. Higher μSBS values were detected for Group 3, irrespective of adhesive system used (P < 0.05). Removing the polyethylene tube before composite rod is placed on dentin affects μSBS values.

This in vitro study evaluated the tensile bond strength of glass fiber posts (Reforpost – Angelus-Brazil) cemented to root dentin with a resin cement (RelyX ARC – 3M/ESPE) associated with two different adhesive systems (Adper Single Bond - 3M/ESPE and Adper Scotchbond Multi Purpose (MP) Plus – 3M/ESPE), using the pull-out test. Twenty single-rooted human teeth with standardized root canals were randomly assigned to 2 groups (n=10): G1- etching with 37% phosphoric acid gel (3M/ESPE) + Adper Single Bond + #1 post (Reforpost – Angelus) + four #1 accessory posts (Reforpin – Angelus) + resin cement; G2- etching with 37% phosphoric acid gel + Adper Scotchbond MP Plus + #1 post + four #1 accessory posts + resin cement. The specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 7 days and submitted to the pull-out test in a universal testing machine (EMIC) at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The mean values of bond strength (kgf) and standard deviation were: G1- 29.163 ± 7.123; G2- 37.752 ±13.054. Statistical analysis (Student's t-test; α=0.05 showed no statistically significant difference (p<0.05) between the groups. Adhesive bonding failures between resin cement and root canal dentin surface were observed in both groups, with non-polymerized resin cement in the apical portion of the post space when Single Bond was used (G1). The type of adhesive system employed on the fiber post cementation did not influence the pull-out bond strength.

No abstract