Aims:To compare the shear bond strength of sixth generation and seventh generation bonding agents to dentin.Materials and Methods:Eighty human maxillary premolars were reduced to expose flat surface of dentin and divided into four equal groups, which were bonded using following bonding agents: Sixth generation bonding agents, Adper SE Plus and Xeno III and Seventh generation bonding agents, Adper Easy One and Xeno V. Composite cylinders were then built using a plastic mould on these prepared dentinal surfaces. Samples were stored in distilled water for 24 hours and tested for shear bond strength with universal testing machine. Shear force was applied perpendicular to the long axis of composite cylinder at adhesive-tooth interface until debonding occurred. The data so obtained were tabulated and analyzed statistically using independent-samples t test and analysis of variance (ANOVA) testResults:The seventh generation adhesives showed significantly higher shear bond strength to dentin compared to sixth generation adhesives (P < 0.01). The highest value of shear bond strength was obtained from Adper Easy One system, while Adper SE Plus gave the lowest shear bond strength values.Conclusions:Seventh generation adhesives are more advantageous than sixth generation adhesives in dentin bonding as it requires less time, fewer steps, and better bond strength.
Nanodentistry is an emerging field with significant potential to yield new generation of technologically advanced clinical tools and devices for oral healthcare. Nanoscale topology and quantitative biomechanical or biophysical analysis of dental surfaces are of significant interest. In particular, using Atomic force microscopy techniques-diseases such as dental caries, tooth hypersensitivity, and oral cancer can be quantified based on morphological, biophysical and biochemical nanoscale properties of tooth surface itself and dental materials or oral fluids such as saliva. An outlook on future "nanodentistry" developments such as saliva exosomes based diagnostics, designing biocompatible, antimicrobial dental implants and personalized dental healthcare is presented. This article examines current applications of nanotechnology alongside proposed applications in the future and aims to demonstrate that, as well as a good deal of science fiction, there is some tangible science fact emerging from this novel multidisciplinary science.
Background and Objectives:The purpose of this study is to evaluate the frictional resistance generated by conventional stainless steel, radiance ceramic bracket, self-ligating and composite brackets using a 0.019 × 0.025 stainless steel straight length wires in a 022 slot and to select brackets based on their frictional characteristic.Methodology:In order to conduct this study, four different types of bracket system were selected of the mclaughlin-bennet-trevesi (MBT) discipline. They are Group 1 - stainless steel, Group 2 - composite bracket Group 3 - (American Orthodontics) radiance ceramic bracket Group 4 - self-ligating bracket (SLB) (Empower). In this study, five maxillary brackets of an arch of each type were used. All brackets are 0.022 × 0.028 in preadjusted edgewise appliance which simulates the dental arch. Five brackets were bonded to a stainless steel bar of dimension 150 mm × 25 mm × 3 mm. The bracket-arch wire units were submitted to mechanical test with an Instron universal testing machine 3365. A testing apparatus or holding jig was designed to hold the bracket during the mechanical test. Each sample was pulled at a speed of 6 mm for 1 min. Descriptive statistical information including mean and standard deviation of maximum friction force was calculated for each bracket wire combination.Interpretation and Conclusion:The SLB has the least friction among the four groups. The ceramic bracket showed the highest friction followed by stainless steel bracket, composite bracket, and SLB.
The aim of the study was to compare In-vitro the micro tensile bond strength of sixth generation (Clearfil SE Bond, Kuraray, Japan), seventh generation (Adper Easy One, 3 M ESPE, Germany) and eighth generation ((Futurabond DC, Voco, Germany) dentin bonding agents. Twenty freshly extracted caries free, unrestored human molars were selected. The occlusal surfaces were ground flat; divided into four groups of five each according to the bonding agent applied and covered with composite resin (10 mm in height). The teeth were sectioned into one mm thick specimens with a cross sectional area of 1 mm square in hard tissue microtome and subjected to tensile force in a universal testing machine. The highest strength was seen in 8th generation bonding agent (Futura bond DC, Voco, Germany) 34.9332 MPa followed by 6th generation bonding agent 32.3477 MPa (Clearfil SE Bond, Kuraray dental, Japan) and the 7th generation agent 31.8826 MPa (Adper Easy One, 3M ESPE, Germany) respectively. The eighth generation dentin bonding agent appeared to be more advantageous in bonding than sixth and seventh generation dentin bonding agents
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.