Influence of pressure application before light-curing on the bond strength of adhesive systems to dentin

Gernhardt, Christian Ralf; Bekes, Katrin; Hahn, Petra; Schaller, Hans‐Günter

doi:10.1590/s0103-64402008000100011

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Accordingly, buccal dentin was used as a substrate according to the specifications. However, when occlusal dentin is used as a substrate and perfusion simulations are performed, significantly lower results could be obtained to dentin especially in deep dentin closer to the pulp with SBT (8 ± 3.7) or TBT (2.6 ± 1.4 − 5.08 ± 3.69) tests [24,[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adhesion of resin composite to enamel and dentin: a methodological assessment

Bracher

Özcan

2017

Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compared the impact of four test methods on adhesion of resin composite to enamel and dentin. Human molars (N = 54) were randomly assigned to test the adhesion of resin composite material (Quadrant Universal LC) using one of the following test methods: (a) macroshear test (SBT; n = 16), (b) macrotensile test (TBT; n = 16), (c) microshear test (μSBT; n = 16) and (d) microtensile test (μTBT; n = 6). In a randomized manner, buccal or lingual surfaces of each tooth, were assigned as enamel or dentin substrates. Enamel and dentin surfaces were conditioned using an etch-and-rinse adhesive system (Syntac Classic). After storage (24 h, 37 °C), bond tests were conducted in a Universal Testing Machine (1 mm/min) and failure types were analyzed. Data were analyzed using Univariate and Tukey`s, Bonneferroni tests (α = 0.05). Two-parameter Weibull modulus, scale (m) and shape (0) were calculated. Test method (p < 0.001) and substrate type (p < 0.001) significantly affected the results. When testing adhesion of resin composite to enamel, SBT (25.9 ± 5.7) a , TBT (17.3 ± 5.1) a,c and μSBT (27.2 ± 6.6) a,d test methods showed significantly higher mean bond values compared to μTBT (10.1 ± 4.4) b (p < 0.05). Adhesion of resin composite to dentin did not show significant difference depending on the test method (12 ± 5.7-20.4 ± 4.8; p > 0.05). Only with SBT, significant difference was observed for bond values between enamel (25.9 ± 5.7) and dentin (12 ± 5.7; p < 0.05). Weibull distribution presented the highest shape values for enamel-μSBT (29.7) and dentin-μSBT (22.2) among substrate-test combinations. Regardless of the test method, cohesive failures in substrate were more frequent in enamel (19.1%) than in dentin (9.8%).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adhesion of resin composite to enamel and dentin: a methodological assessment

Bracher

Özcan

2017

Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are some studies that have achieved higher adhesive forces than our study [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15], others reported from comparable [16][17][18], some also showed lower values (Table 5) [19][20][21].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 46%

“…It may cause differences in the preparation of the samples [11,14], whole teeth are embedded, the pulp chamber is blocked out [11][12][13]15], only toothed discs are used. An important point is also the infl uence of the application aids [10,12,16,17] and the choice of the aging process [14,18], for example only storage in water for days or months as well as thermocycling [8,10,15,17]. The methods of determining the adhesion [5,15,25,26] may differ even all in choice of the debonding speed [18,19,25].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Depending on the test method used, the results of the 147 studies showed a very broad variation of the bond strength values, with the shear strength of the micro tensile strength test producing the higher adhesion values [5,15]. Many studies do not take into account the fracture modes [5,[15][16][17], which are critical in determining shear bond strength and the inclusion of cohesive fractures may also infl uence the results. In the study by Makowski, a correlation was found between the occurrence of low adhesion values and adhesive fractures as well as high adhesion values and mixed fractures [11].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Influence of three different dentin bonding agents on the adhesion of composite resin to dentine–An in vitro study

Hoferichter¹,

Rüttermann²,

Gerhardt‐Szép³

2019

J Dent Probl Solut

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this randomized in vitro study is to clarify if there are differences between the dentin adhesives as well as their adhesion and fracture behaviour. The study design was based on the ISO standard TS 11405 (2003). For this purpose, ninety extracted, caries-free human molars were embedded in a plastic block, and the dentinal surfaces were dissected free. Teeth were divided into three groups (n = 30) and each treated with a different adhesive system (SYC: Syntac Classic; CSE: Clearfi l SE, CS3: Clearfi l S3). All trial teeth were coated with a cylindrical standardized test specimen (diameter: 3.0 mm, height: 3.0 mm) on buccal surfaces with an ISOconforming application aid. The aging of the samples was achieved by thermocycling (500 cycles). Thereafter, the adhesive forces (MPa) of the various dentin adhesive systems were determined by means of shear bond testing with a universal testing machine from Zwick. The samples were examined under a scanning electron microscope at 20x and 2000x magnifi cation for their fracture modes (adhesive, cohesive, mixed). Furthermore, parametric Weibull regression models were applied to evaluate whether there was a signifi cant association between shear bond strength and the used adhesive system. Weibull analysis was performed using R software (version 2.11.1, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). Differences between groups were tested using Wald tests, and p-values below 0.05 were considered signifi cant. CSE (3.97 MPa), followed by SYC (3.02 MPa), and CS3 (2.16 MPa) had the highest bond strength averages. The result of the statistical evaluation shows statistical differences between the different groups. Mostly mixed fractures were observed. SYC (m = 6.35) was most reliably followed by CSE (m = 4.75). The lowest Weibull module scored CS3 (m = 3.91).Under the limitations of this study, it can be stated that the differences between the groups were signifi cant and the One-Step Self-Etch-system (CS3) showed the lowest values. Additionally one major problem was the acrylic application aid (split mould according to ISO/TS 11405), which may have transferred adverse forces to the specimen and which cannot be recommended for further studies.

show abstract

“…A previous study provided data about bond strength and the characteristics of the adhesive interface obtained using scanning electron microscope (SEM) and nanoleakage 9 - . However, little information is available about the mechanical behavior of the dentin/adhesive interface based on hybrid layer quality 2 , 15 , 19 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of voids in the hybrid layer based on self-etching adhesive systems: a 3-D FE analysis

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The presence of porosities at the dentin/adhesive interface has been observed with the use of new generation dentin bonding systems. These porosities tend to contradict the concept that etching and hybridization processes occur equally and simultaneously. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the micromechanical behavior of the hybrid layer (HL) with voids based on a self-etching adhesive system using 3-D finite element (FE) analysis. Material and Methods: Three Fe models (Mr) were built: Mr, dentin specimen (41x41x82 μm) with a regular and perfect (i.e. pore-free) HL based on a self-etching adhesive system, restored with composite resin; Mp, similar to M, but containing 25% (v/v) voids in the HL; Mpp, similar to Mr, but containing 50% (v/v) voids in the HL. A tensile load (0.03N) was applied on top of the composite resin. The stress field was obtained by using Ansys Workbench 10.0. The nodes of the base of the specimen were constrained in the x, y and z axes. The maximum principal stress (σmax) was obtained for all structures at the dentin/adhesive interface. Results: The Mpp showed the highest peak of σmax in the HL (32.2 MPa), followed by Mp (30 MPa) and Mr (28.4 MPa). The stress concentration in the peritubular dentin was high in all models (120 MPa). All other structures positioned far from voids showed similar increase of stress. Conclusion: Voids incorporated into the HL raised the σmax in this region by 13.5%. This behavior might be responsible for lower bond strengths of self-etching and single-bottle adhesives, as reported in the literature.

show abstract

Influence of pressure application before light-curing on the bond strength of adhesive systems to dentin

Cited by 4 publications

References 11 publications

Adhesion of resin composite to enamel and dentin: a methodological assessment

Adhesion of resin composite to enamel and dentin: a methodological assessment

Influence of three different dentin bonding agents on the adhesion of composite resin to dentine–An in vitro study

Influence of voids in the hybrid layer based on self-etching adhesive systems: a 3-D FE analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About