Bond Strength of Different Adhesive Systems to Dental Hard Tissues

Yazici, Arife; Çelik, Çiğdem; Özgünaltay, Gül; Dayangaç, Berrin

doi:10.2341/06-49

Cited by 62 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of present study are similar to some other studies which compared self-etch and etch-and-rinse adhesive systems [8][9][10]. According to one SEM study, resin tags which formed in enamel after self-etch adhesives' application was lesser and with lower depth of penetration in comparison with etch-and-rinse adhesives [11].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Comparing the Shear Bond Strength of Six Adhesive Systems to Enamel of Primary Teeth

E¹,

Hedayati²,

Shadman³

et al. 2014

Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim and goals: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the shear bond strength of six adhesive systems to enamel of primary teeth.Method: This experimental in vitro study was performed on 72 extracted primary molars. The teeth were randomly divided into six groups. In each group one of the adhesives; Tetric N-Bond, AdheSE, AdheSE One F, Single Bond 2, SE Bond, and Adper Prompt L-Pop, were used. After preparing the flat enamel surfaces on buccal or lingual and applying adhesives, composite was adhered to the surfaces and after 24 hours storage and thermocycling (500 cycles, 5-500˚C), shear bond strength was tested with a universal testing machine and mode of failure was evaluated by a stereomicroscope. Data was analyzed by SPSS18 using Anova, tukey and fisher's exact test. P<0.05 was considered as the level of significance. Results:The shear bond strength of Teric N-Bond was significantly higher than SE Bond (P=0.012), AdheSE (P=0.000), AdheSE One F(p=0.001) and Adper Prompt L-Pop(P=0.001). Shear bond strength of Single Bond 2 was significantly higher than AdheSE(P=0.004), AdheSE One F(P=0.006) and Adper Prompt L-Pop (P=0.006). Mode of failure in all groups was mostly adhesive. Conclusion:The shear bond strength of etch-and-rinse adhesive systems were higher than self-etch adhesives except for one adhesive (SE bond) and the bond strength of self-etch adhesives were not significantly different.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Comparing the Shear Bond Strength of Six Adhesive Systems to Enamel of Primary Teeth

E¹,

Hedayati²,

Shadman³

et al. 2014

Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most modern adhesives combine these functions into one or two bottles. Although many simplified adhesives perform adequately in laboratory studies compared with their traditional multistep counterparts, [19][20][21][22][23] simplified systems generally display poor clinical performances. 24 Clinical trials are necessary to verify laboratory results and to evaluate long-term adhesive performance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Evaluation of Self-etch and Total-etch Adhesive Systems in Noncarious Cervical Lesions: A Two-year Report

Burgess

Sadid‐Zadeh

Çakır

et al. 2013

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical performance of two self-etch dental adhesives with Single Bond Plus, a traditional one-bottle total-etch dental adhesive, for the restoration of noncarious cervical lesions. Materials and Methods: A total of 156 restorations were placed in noncarious cervical lesions with a minimum depth of 1.5 mm. Patients had no chronic periodontal disease and had normal salivary function. Each patient received restorations on three teeth, each bonded with either Adper Single Bond Plus, Adper Easy Bond, or Adper Scotchbond SE dental adhesive. All lesions were restored with Filtek Supreme Plus composite resin. All teeth were isolated with a rubber dam, received a short enamel bevel, and were cleaned with flour of pumice. The adhesives and resin composite were applied following the manufacturers' instructions. Restorations were clinically evaluated at baseline, six months, one year, and two years using modified US Public Health Service criteria. Results: Two-year retention was recorded as 97.3%, 90.5%, and 95.2%, for Single Bond Plus, Scotchbond SE, and Easy Bond, respectively. Statistical analysis did not show a significant difference (p>0.05) in clinical performance between any of the three adhesives after a period of two years.

show abstract

“…One-step: this uses a single bottle containing a formulation that blends a self-etching primer and bonding agent. Clinically, this is the easiest to use, and bond strengths are generally reported to be acceptable, despite the simplicity of bonding operation (45). In order to understand the hybrid layer formation using total etch technique and the self etch technique, it is necessary to understand the components of bonding systems that consist of three main components: 1) etchant, 2) primer and 3) bonding resin: 1.…”

Section: Eighth Generationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Classification review of dental adhesive systems: from the IV generation to the universal type

Sofan

Palaia

et al. 2017

ADS

269

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryAdhesive dentistry has undergone great progress in the last decades. In light of minimal-invasive dentistry, this new approach promotes a more conservative cavity design, which relies on the effectiveness of current enamel-dentine adhesives. Adhesive dentistry began in 1955 by Buonocore on the benefits of acid etching. With changing technologies, dental adhesives have evolved from noetch to total-etch (4 th and 5 th generation) to self-etch (6 th , 7 th and 8 th generation) systems. Currently, bonding to dental substrates is based on three different strategies: 1) etch-and-rinse, 2) self-etch and 3) resin-modified glass-ionomer approach as possessing the unique properties of self-adherence to the tooth tissue. More recently, a new family of dentin adhesives has been introduced (universal or multi-mode adhesives), which may be used either as etch-and-rinse or as self-etch adhesives. The purpose of this article is to review the literature on the current knowledge for each adhesive system according to their classification that have been advocated by many authorities in most operative/restorative procedures. As noted by several valuable studies that have contributed to understanding of bonding to various substrates helps clinicians to choose the appropriate dentin bonding agents for optimal clinical outcomes.

show abstract

Bond Strength of Different Adhesive Systems to Dental Hard Tissues

Cited by 62 publications

References 25 publications

Comparing the Shear Bond Strength of Six Adhesive Systems to Enamel of Primary Teeth

Comparing the Shear Bond Strength of Six Adhesive Systems to Enamel of Primary Teeth

Clinical Evaluation of Self-etch and Total-etch Adhesive Systems in Noncarious Cervical Lesions: A Two-year Report

Classification review of dental adhesive systems: from the IV generation to the universal type

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About