Method to compare μ-tensile bond strength of a self-etching adhesive and μ-cohesive strength of adjacent dentin

Macorra, José C. de la; San-Nicolás, Adriana

doi:10.1016/j.dental.2004.11.007

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Besides providing a compatible link to the silorane matrix, this hydrophobic SSA-Bond can be expected to have sealed off dentin surface by blocking osmotic water-sorption from dentin, which can be beneficial with regard to bond stability [ 16 - 19 ]. These properties, amongst others like possibly a more favorable polymerization conversion of SSA, may altogether have contributed to the higher MTBS obtained for Filtek P90 [ 14 , 20 ]. Filtek P90 has a lower filler content of 79% by weight compared to Clearfil AP-X (86% by weight).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Resin-Dentin Bond by Microtensile Bond Strength Test: Effects of Various Resin Composites and Placement Techniques

Moosavi

Mohammadi

Forghani

et al. 2015

TODENTJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives:This in vitro study evaluated the microtensile bond strength (MTBS) of a methacrylate-based compared to a silorane-based resin composite in Class I cavity using different placement techniques.Materials and Methods:Class I cavities with dimension of (4 mm long, 4 mm wide, 3 mm deep) were prepared in extracted sound human molars. The teeth were randomly divided into six groups. The first three groups were filled with Filtek P90 using three methods of insertion; bulk, incremental and snow-plow, and the remaining three groups were filled with Clearfil AP-X using the same three placement techniques. After 24 hours of storage in water at 37°C, the specimens were thermocycled to 1000 cycles. Specimens were prepared for MTBS testing by creating bonded beams obtained from the pulpal floor. Statistical analysis used: Statistical analyses of data were performed by two-way ANOVA/Tukey (α=.05).Results:The experiment showed significant differences between the two resin composites with regard to filling techniques (P<0.05). The MTBS was significantly higher in each of Filtek P90 subgroup compared to Clearfil AP-X ones (P<0.05). With respect to filling technique in both resin composites, bulk insertion showed the significantly lowest MTBS (P<0.05), while no significant difference was found between the outcome of incremental and snow-plow techniques (P>0.05).Conclusion:Silorane-based resin composite as opposed to methacrylate based resin composite and layering placements in contrast to bulk filling method had higher microtensile bond strength.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Resin-Dentin Bond by Microtensile Bond Strength Test: Effects of Various Resin Composites and Placement Techniques

Moosavi

Mohammadi

Forghani

et al. 2015

TODENTJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The precise intrinsic resistance of dentin varies from the enamel-dentin junction to the area near the pulp because of pre-existing defects in its structure, which function as "amplifiers" for the stress promoted by the test 39 . De la Macorra and San-Nicolás 18 and Perálvarez-Aguilera et al 40 suggest that substrate variation in testing can be minimized by using the cohesive resistance values for the dentin adjacent to the adhesive interface as a standard for comparison in microtensile strength assays. They made notches in the dentin that were 1.5 mm deep and wide, with an inter-notch distance of 1.5 mm.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This method has enabled dentin's cohesive resistance and adhesive resistance to be evaluated at equivalent depths in the same tooth, under the same conditions of preparation. Thus, since we do not know the ideal mechanical resistance for an adhesive interface, this approach should give a sample that is at least close to the proposed substitution tissue 18,40 . Nevertheless, we found only two studies 18,40 that evaluated how this method affected test results, limiting our ability to assess the benefits of the method relative to the conventional microtensile strength test.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parameters that influence microtensile bond testing of adhesive systems

Lula

Leite

Alves

et al. 2014

RGO, Rev. Gaúch. Odontol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMOO objetivo deste estudo foi realizar uma revisão crítica da literatura sobre os fatores que podem interferir nos resultados do teste de microtração de sistemas adesivos ao esmalte ou dentina. Foram utilizados trabalhos publicados nas bases de dados eletrônicas MEDLINE e BBO, em inglês, espanhol ou português, entre julho de 1994 e setembro de 2009, referências destes artigos, além de dissertações e teses disponíveis em bancos de dados eletrônicos de universidades brasileiras enfocando o estudo das variáveis que podem influenciar cada fase da execução do ensaio de microtração. A estratégia de busca incluiu os termos: microtração e teste; microtração e ensaio; microtensile e test e parameters; microtensile e test e factors; microtensile e specimen; microtracción e espécimen. Os 25 artigos selecionados demonstraram que mesmo após a padronização de parâmetros do ensaio, as alterações encontradas na dentina podem ser responsáveis pela variação do resultado. Uma maneira de reduzir esta influência seria utilizar os valores de resistência coesiva da dentina adjacente à interface adesiva como padrão de comparação, porém mais estudos são necessários. Aspectos relativos à análise dos dados devem ser levados em consideração quando se compara os estudos.Termos de indexação: Materiais dentários. Adesivos dentinários. Teste de materiais. Resistência à tração.

show abstract

“…Although the bonding between self‐etching adhesives and dentin10–20 has been extensively studied, most of such studies have so far focused on the structural and mechanical properties of the interface between the dentin and resulting resin. As to the polymerization process itself, little efforts have been devoted.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of initiator on photopolymerization of acidic, aqueous dental model adhesives

Guo

Peng

Spencer

et al. 2008

J Biomedical Materials Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated different initiator systems in self-etching model adhesives, in which camphorquinone (CQ) or [3-(3,4-dimethyl-9-oxo-9H-thioxanthen-2-yloxy)-2-hydroxylpropy] trimethylammonium chloride (QTX) was employed as a photoinitiator (dye). N-phenylglycine (NPG), ethyl 4-dimethylaminobenzoate (4E) or 2-(dimethylamino) ethyl methacrylate (DMAEMA) was used as the coinitiator (CI). The role of diphenyliodonium hexafluorophosphate (DPIHP) in the polymerization process was also studied. The concentrations of dye, CI, and DPIHP in model adhesives were all maintained at 0.022 mmol per gram monomer. The model adhesive contained two monomers: (bis[2-(methacryloyloxy)ethyl] phosphate) (2MP) and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) whose mass ratio was 1:1, thus representing an acidic and hydrophilic formulation. The polymerization rate and the degree of conversion (DC) of the model adhesives with 5, 15, or 25% water content were determined using FTIR/ATR with a time-based spectrum analysis. The results indicated that with CQ as the photoinitiator, 4E appeared to be the most efficient CI, whereas the CQ-DMAEMA combination led to very low radical generation efficiency (DC < 5%). DPIHP exhibited little effect on the polymerization process. With QTX as the photoinitiator, however, DPIHP played an essential role. Without DPIHP, all three QTX-CI systems failed to initiate polymerization (DC < 5%). The QTX-DPIHP combination, on the other hand, was found to be a viable initiator system. The above results provide the critical information for the development of self-etching adhesive systems.

show abstract

Method to compare μ-tensile bond strength of a self-etching adhesive and μ-cohesive strength of adjacent dentin

Cited by 5 publications

References 23 publications

Evaluating Resin-Dentin Bond by Microtensile Bond Strength Test: Effects of Various Resin Composites and Placement Techniques

Evaluating Resin-Dentin Bond by Microtensile Bond Strength Test: Effects of Various Resin Composites and Placement Techniques

Parameters that influence microtensile bond testing of adhesive systems

Effect of initiator on photopolymerization of acidic, aqueous dental model adhesives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About