The effect of saliva on shear bond strengths of hydrophilic bonding systems

Webster, Mark J.; Nanda, Ram S.; Duncanson, Manville G.; Khajotia, Sharukh S.; Sinha, Pramod K.

doi:10.1067/mod.2001.109888

Cited by 60 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The majority of previously published reports have focused on the influence of saliva on orthodontic adhesives [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] or fissure sealants, [19][20][21][22][23] and only a few reports have dealt with the effect of salivary contamination on resin restorations. 24 Controversial data have been reported regarding the effect of saliva contamination on the enamel bond strength of adhesives, because it depends not only on the individual adhesive used, but also on the adhesive in combination with the primer.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Saliva Contamination and Decontamination on Bovine Enamel Bond Strength of Four Self-etching Adhesives

Jiang¹,

Pan²,

Liu³

et al. 2010

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYObjective: This study evaluated the effect of saliva contamination on the bovine enamel microtensile bond strengths (µTBS) of four selfetching adhesives. Materials and Methods: The labial enamel surfaces of extracted non-carious bovine incisors were serially wet ground. The enamel surfaces were not contaminated (Group A), contaminated with saliva before/after priming (Groups B/C) or they were water-sprayed after salivary contamination occurred before/ after priming (Groups D/E). Four self-etching adhesives and the corresponding resin composites from the same manufacturer (Clearfil SE Bond + Clearfil AP-X, Kuraray Co; Xeno III + Ceram X, Densply; Frog + Ice, SDI; FL Bond II + Beautifil II, Shofu Inc) were applied onto the enamel surfaces. The µTBS tests were performed with a micro tester (BISCO, Inc). The enamel surface was analyzed with AFM (Atomic Force Microscopy) before/after salivary contamination occurred or after the saliva-contaminated enamel was water-sprayed. The data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA, factorial design ANOVA and post hoc Tukey's HSD multiple comparisons. Salivary contamination before and after priming could significantly reduce the enamel bond strength of self-etching adhesives. Proper isolation should be performed before and during application of the adhesives and placement of the resin composite. Thorough water-spraying could significantly improve the µTBS of saliva-contaminated enamel.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Saliva Contamination and Decontamination on Bovine Enamel Bond Strength of Four Self-etching Adhesives

Jiang¹,

Pan²,

Liu³

et al. 2010

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…4 Some studies found a greater decrease in bond strength when contamination occurred after acidetching; in such cases, re-etching of the enamel surface was necessary. 5,14,16 The contamination of the etched area by saliva or blood leads to the sealing of most of the porosity created by enamel acid-etching, which prevents the penetration of the adhesive material, resulting in insufficient resin tags in both number and length, and compromises bonding. 7 Other studies also found statistically significant differences when materials were compared before and after saliva contamination, with no differences regarding the material employed, 6,16 although some studies have suggested differently about whether Transbond™ MIP may be the best choice for moist environments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4,5,16 Enamel surface contamination may occur at two critical time points during bonding: After etching or after adhesive application. When that happens, bonding may be affected.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3,4,11,17 The substrate used in our study was bovine tooth enamel, as in other studies. 4,5,13,16 Bovine teeth are anatomically, histologically and chemically similar to human teeth, although bond strength result shows to be lower than those of human teeth. 8,9 In this study, the samples used for the bond strength trial were cylinders made of Transbond™ XT composite resin.…”

Section: E5mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5,6 However, when used in moist environments, its advantages over Transbond™ XT (3M Unitek Dental Products, Monrovia, CA), a conventional adhesive system, remain controversial. 4,15,16 In a dry environment, both have similar bond strength, 4,5,15,17 but Transbond™ MIP may present a significantly higher bond strength than necessary for bonding (18.31 MPa), 13 which may damage the enamel during debonding. Adhesive materials should have shear bond strengths compatible to the clinical needs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Influence of saliva contamination on the shear bond strength of adhesives on enamel

Assad-Loss¹,

Tostes²,

Mucha³

2012

Dental Press J. Orthod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Influence of saliva contamination on the shear bond strength of adhesives on enamel original articleObjective: To evaluate shear bond strength of 3 adhesive systems (Single Bond, Transbond™ MIP and Transbond™ XT) applied on bovine enamel under saliva contamination condition. Method:One hundred and twenty enamel surfaces of bovine incisors were divided into 6 groups (n = 20) according to the adhesive system used (Transbond™ XT, Transbond™ MIP and Single Bond) with or without saliva contamination. For each adhesive system, there were two groups defined as no contamination group (NC): 37% H 3 PO 4 conditioning for 30 seconds and two layers of adhesive systems; saliva contamination group (SC): After the first adhesive layer application, the examined areas were contaminated with saliva. Samples were mounted appropriately for testing and stored in deionized water at 37 °C for 7 days. Samples were then submitted to shear bond strength trials at a speed of 0.5 mm/min. The Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) was evaluated under stereomicroscopy. Twoway analysis of variance and the Tukey test were used to compare mean values (α = 0.05).Results: Groups XT (NC) = 26.29 ± 7.23; MIP (NC) = 24.47 ± 7.52 and SB (NC) = 32.36 ± 4.14 XT (SC) = 19.59 ± 6.76; MIP (SC) = 18.08 ± 6.39 and SB (SC) = 18.18 ± 7.03 MPa. ARI 0 and 1 were the most prevalent scores in all study groups examined. Conclusion:Saliva contamination significantly decreased bond strength of the three adhesive systems examined (p <0.05). However, the comparison of groups with and without saliva contamination did not reveal any significant differences, and, therefore, the three systems may be considered equivalent.

show abstract

Orthodontic Bonding to Wet Enamel with Water-Insensitive and Water-Activated Orthodontic Adhesive Resins

Eliades¹,

Εliades²,

Silikas³

et al. 2005

Dental Hard Tissues and Bonding

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effect of saliva on shear bond strengths of hydrophilic bonding systems

Cited by 60 publications

References 11 publications

Effect of Saliva Contamination and Decontamination on Bovine Enamel Bond Strength of Four Self-etching Adhesives

Effect of Saliva Contamination and Decontamination on Bovine Enamel Bond Strength of Four Self-etching Adhesives

Influence of saliva contamination on the shear bond strength of adhesives on enamel

Orthodontic Bonding to Wet Enamel with Water-Insensitive and Water-Activated Orthodontic Adhesive Resins

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About