Evaluation of the micro-shear bond strength of four adhesive systems to dentin with and without adhesive area limitation

Chai, Yuan; Lin, Hong; Zheng, Gang; Zhang, Xuehui; Niu, Guangliang; Du, Qiao

doi:10.3233/bme-151290

Cited by 7 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…87 The analysis of mode of failure is an essential factor to exemplify tests results. 88 In the current study, the analysis of the failure mode was consistent with the μ-TBS test results as the groups that showed the least bond strength; Single Bond Universal with SE and ER approaches after 6 month storage in water (28.2±1.97 and 27.4±2.75 MPa, respectively), showed the highest adhesive failure among all tested groups (46.67%). Also, regarding the effect of aging within each group, we can correlate the drop in the bond strength after 6 month storage in water with the increasing number of adhesive failure of such specimens.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Effectiveness of two universal adhesives using two different bonding approaches

Abu-Nawareg

Basheer

2018

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives:The aim of the current study was to evaluate the resin-dentin micro-tensile bond strength (μ-TBS) using 2 types of universal adhesives with etch-and-rinse and self-etch approaches after 24 hours and 6 months of water storage. Materials and Methods:A total of 20 extracted non-carious human molars were used in this study. Teeth were equally and randomly divided into 2 groups (N= 10 teeth) according to the type of adhesive used; Group I; Adhese® Universal and Group II; Single Bond Universal. Each group was further subdivided into 2 equal subgroups (n=5 teeth) according to the bonding approach used; Subgroup A; using the self-etch (SE) approach and Subgroup B; using the etch-and-rinse (ER) approach. After bonding, each tooth was built up by resin composite, cut into sticks (0.9 mm x 0.9 mm) and stored in distilled water at 37˚C for 24 hours and 6 months. Then, each stick was stressed under tension until failure using a simplified universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Data were statistically analyzed using One-Way ANOVA, Two-Way ANOVA and Tukey HSD Tests. After μ-TBS testing, all debonded surfaces were observed using a stereomicroscope at 50X magnification to determine the modes of failure, which were categorized as adhesive, cohesive or mixed failure. Results:After 24 hours of water storage, there was no significant difference between the μ-TBS exhibited by Adhese Universal using both SE and ER approaches while both approaches differed significantly when using Single Bond Universal (P=0.0003). Furthermore, there was no significant difference when comparing the μ-TBS means of SE groups or ER groups of both adhesive systems. After 6 months of water storage at 37˚C, there was a significant decrease in the μ-TBS values of all groups (p<0.0001) except when Adhese Universal was used with SE approach, there was no difference between the 24 h and the 6 month-groups (p=0.1449). The failure mode analysis was consistent with the μ-TBS test results as the number of adhesive failures increased with decreased bond strength values. Conclusions:When bonding resin-based composite restoratives to dentin, a separate acidetching step is not required when using Adhese Universal, but it is preferred with Single Bond Universal adhesive. Aging markedly contributes to bond degradation of universal adhesives.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Effectiveness of two universal adhesives using two different bonding approaches

Abu-Nawareg

Basheer

2018

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It seems that wherever the loading device is touching the outer perimeter of the specimen, controlled adhesive debonding occurs, while at circumferential points where no touching occurs, complex stresses are generated, leading to cohesive failure in dentin, taking the shape of a mussel (Figures 5 and 6, top left). The same shape was noticed in mixed failures presented by Andrade et al [33] and Chai et al [14], but it was not described as being mussel-shaped. The mussel shape was noticed to have its vertex pointing at the starting point of cohesive failure.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

“…By observing the bar chart of adhesive failure percentages, it can be noticed that the four test groups showed nearly the same sequential pattern as the mean stress at failure The same shape was noticed in mixed failures presented by Andrade et al [33] and Chai et al [14], but it was not described as being mussel-shaped. The mussel shape was noticed to have its vertex pointing at the starting point of cohesive failure.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 54%

Micro versus Macro Shear Bond Strength Testing of Dentin-Composite Interface Using Chisel and Wireloop Loading Techniques

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Shear bond strength (SBS) testing is a commonly used method for evaluating different dental adhesive systems. Failure mode analysis provides valuable information for better interpretation of bond strength results. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of specimen dimension and loading technique on shear bond strength and failure mode results. Eighty macro and micro flowable composite cylindrical specimens of 1.8 and 0.8 mm diameter, respectively, and 1.5 mm length were bonded to dentinal substrate. Four study groups were created (n = 20): Macroshear wireloop, Gp1; Microshear wireloop, Gp2; Macroshear chisel, Gp3; and Microshear chisel, Gp4. They were tested for SBS using chisel and wireloop loading devices followed by failure mode analysis using digital microscopy and SEM. Two- and one-way ANOVA were used to compare stress at failure values of different groups while the Kruskal–Wallis test was used to compare between failure modes of the tested groups. Gp4 recorded the highest mean stress at failure 54.1 ± 14.1 MPa, and the highest percentage of adhesive failure in relation to the other groups. Specimen dimension and loading technique are important parameters influencing the results of shear bond strength. Micro-sized specimens and chisel loading are recommended for shear testing.

show abstract

“…Five tubes were distributed on the bonding surface of each disk. (50)(51)(52) Variolink Esthetic DC adhesive resin cement was auto-mixed and applied through the tubes to the ceramic bonding area using the auto-mixing syringe, to the height of 1mm and then light cured according to the manufacturer's instructions for 10 s from all directions using Optilux 400 system (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany). The tubes were then removed leaving a resin cement cylinder of 1mm height and 1 diameter.…”

Section: Cement Applicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Two Different Surface Treatments on Micro-Shear Bond Strength of Cad/Cam and Heat Pressed Glass Ceramics

Salem

Ziada

Elbanna

2019

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the micro-shear bond strength between a dual cured resin cement and five different types of ceramics in composition and techniques of construction, using two different surface treatments. Materials & methods: A total of 50 ceramic disks were made and divided into 5 equal groups according to material type IPS Empress CAD, IPS e.max Press, IPS e.max CAD, Vita Suprinity and PM9 (n = 10). Each group was subdivided into 2 subgroups according to surface treatment they will be subjected to (n=5). Subgroup I: Bonding surfaces were etched with 5% HF acid, then coated with Monobond S. Subgroup II: Monobond Etch & Prime was applied on the bonding surfaces. For standardization of bonding surface area, 5 plastic tubings distributed on the bonding surface of each disk were used to place the dual resin cement. The samples were then subjected to micro-shear bond strength. Results: Results showed insignificant difference in micro-shear mean values between the IPS Empress CAD subgroups while significant differences were found between the other subgroups within the same group. Monobond Etch & Prime surface treatment resulted in higher micro-shear bond strength compared with HF surface treated subgroups for all the tested materials except for the PM9 and IPS e.max CAD. Conclusions: It was found that ceramic microstructure as well as the fabrication technique affects the selection surface treatment type. Also, Monobod Etch and Prime as a single step surface treatment produced clinically accepted and comparable results to that of HF treatment.

show abstract

Evaluation of the micro-shear bond strength of four adhesive systems to dentin with and without adhesive area limitation

Cited by 7 publications

References 30 publications

Effectiveness of two universal adhesives using two different bonding approaches

Effectiveness of two universal adhesives using two different bonding approaches

Micro versus Macro Shear Bond Strength Testing of Dentin-Composite Interface Using Chisel and Wireloop Loading Techniques

Effect of Two Different Surface Treatments on Micro-Shear Bond Strength of Cad/Cam and Heat Pressed Glass Ceramics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About