Warning: mkdir(): Permission denied in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 81

Warning: fopen(upload/ip_log/ip_log_2024-12.txt): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 83

Warning: fwrite() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 84
Microshear bond strength of adhesives according to the direction of enamel rods


Your browser does not support the NLM PubReader view.

Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.

Microshear bond strength of adhesives according to the direction of enamel rods

Article information

Restor Dent Endod. 2005;30(4):344-351
Publication date (electronic) : 2005 July 30
doi : https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2005.30.4.344
Young-Gon Cho, Jong-Jin Kim
Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Chosun University, Korea.
Corresponding author: Young-Gon Cho. Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Chosun University, 421 Seosuk-dong, Dong-gu, Gwangju, Korea, 501-825. Tel: 82-62-220-3840, 3845, Fax: 82-62-232-9064, ygcho@mail.chosun.ac.kr
Received 2004 December 31; Revised 2005 July 01; Accepted 2005 July 03.

Abstract

This study compared the microshear bond strength (µSBS) to end and side of enamel rod bonded by four adhesives including two total etch adhesives and two self-etch adhesives.

Crown segments of extracted human molars were cut mesiodistally. The outer buccal or lingual surface was used as specimens cutting the ends of enamel rods, and inner slabs used as specimens cutting the sides of enamel rods.

They were assigned to four groups by used adhesives: Group 1 (All-Bond 2), Group 2 (Single Bond), Group 3 (Tyrian SPE/One-Step Plus), Group 4 (Adper Prompt L-Pop). After each adhesive was applied to enamel surface, three composite cylinders were adhered to it of each specimen using Tygon tube. After storage in distilled water for 24 hours, the bonded specimens were subjected to µSBS testing with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/minute. The results of this study were as follows;

1. The µSBS of Group 2 (16.50 ± 2.31 MPa) and Group 4 (15.83 ± 2.33 MPa) to the end of enamel prism was significantly higher than that of Group 1 (11.93 ± 2.25 MPa) and Group 3 (11.97 ± 2.05 MPa) (p < 0.05).

2. The µSBS of Group 2 (13.43 ± 2.93 MPa) to the side of enamel prism was significantly higher than that of Group 1 (8.64 ± 1.53 MPa), Group 3 (9.69 ± 1.80 MPa), and Group 4 (10.56 ± 1.75 MPa) (p < 0.05).

3. The mean µSBS to the end of enamel rod was significantly higher than that to the side of enamel rod in all group (p < 0.05).

Keywords: Microshear bond strength; Enamel rod; Total etch adhesives; Self-etch adhesives; Slabs

References

1. Inoue S, Vargas MA, Abe Y, Abe Y, Yoshida Y, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G, Sano H, Van Meerbeek B. Microtensile bond strength of eleven contemporary adhesives to enamel. Am J Dent 2003. 16329–334.
2. Cardoso PFC, Meloncini MA, Placido E, Lima JDO, Tavares AU. Influence of the substrate and load application method on the shear bond strength of two adhesive systems. Oper Dent 2003. 28(4)388–394.
3. Dickens SH, Milos MF. Relationship of dentin shear bond strengths to different laboratory test designs. Am J Dent 2002. 15185–192.
4. Fanchi M, Breschi L. Effects of acid-etching solutions on human enamel and dentin. Quintessence Int 1995. 26431–435.
5. Gilpatrick RO, Ross JA, Simonsen RJ. Resin-to-enamel bond strengths with various etching times. Quintessence Int 1991. 2247–49.
6. Hannig M, Reinhardt KJ, Bott B. Self-etching primer vs phosphoric acid: an alternative concept for composite-to-enamel bonding. Oper Dent 1999. 24172–180.
7. Hara AT, Amaral CM, Pimenta LAF, Sinhoreti MAC. Shear bond strength of hydrophilic adhesive systems to enamel. Am J Dent 1999. 12181–184.
8. Ikeda T, Uno S, Tanaka T, Kawakami S, Komatsu H, Sano H. Relation of enamel prism orientation to microtensile bond strength. Am J Dent 2002. 15109–113.
9. Toledano M, Osorio R, de Leonardi G, Rosales-Leal JI, Ceballos L, Cabrerizo-Vilchez MA. Influence of self-etching primer on the resin adhesion to enamel and dentin. Am J Dent 2001. 14205–210.
10. Pashley DH, Tay FR. Aggressiveness of contemporary self-etching adhesives. part II : etching effects on unground enamel. Dent Mater 2001. 17430–444.
11. Fabianelli A, Kugel G, Ferrari M. Efficacy of self-etching primer on sealing margins of class II restorations. Am J Dent 2003. 1637–41.
12. Torii Y, Itou K, Nishitani Y, Ishikawa K, Suzuki K. Effect of phosphoric acid etching to self-etching primer application on adhesion of resin composite to enamel and dentin. Am J Dent 2002. 15305–308.
13. Miyazaki M, Hinoura K, Honjo G, Onose H. Effect of self-etching primer application method on enamel bond strength. Am J Dent 2002. 15412–416.
14. Kanemura N, Sano H, Tagami J. Tensile bond strength to and SEM evaluation of ground and intact enamel surfaces. J Dent 1999. 27523–530.
15. Perdigao J, Lopes L, Lambrechts P, Leitao J, Van Meerbeek B. Effects of a self-etching primer on enamel shear bond strengths and SEM morphology. Am J Dent 1997. 10141–146.
16. Shimada Y, Kikushima D, Tagami J. Micro-shear bond strength of resin-bonding systems to cervical enamel. Am J Dent 2002. 15373–377.
17. Shimada Y, Senawongse P, Harnirattisai C, Burrow MF, Nakaoki Y, Tagami J. Bond strength of two adhesive systems to primary and permanent enamel. Oper Dent 2002. 27403–409.
18. Munechika T, Suzuki K, Nishiyama M, Ohashi M, Horie K. A comparison of the tensile bond strengths of composite resins to longitudinal and transverse sections of enamel prisms in human teeth. J Dent Res 1984. 63(8)1079–1082.
19. Carvalho RM, Santiago SL, Fernandes CA, Suh BI, Pashley DH. Effect of prism orientation on tensile strength of enamel. J Adhes Dent 2000. 2(4)251–257.
20. Frankenberger R, Kramer N, Petschelt A. Long-term effect of dentin primers on enamel bond strength and marginal adaptation. Oper Dent 2000. 2511–19.
21. Sano H, Shono T, Sonoda H, Takatsu T, Ciucchi B, Carvalho RM, Pashley DH. Relationship between surface area for adhesion and tensile bond strength-evaluation of micro-tensile bond test. Dent Mater 1994. 10236–240.
22. Shimada Y, Tagami J. Effects of regional enamel and prism orientation on resin bonding. Oper Dent 2003. 2820–27.
23. Shimada Y, Iwamoto N, Kawashima M, Burrow MF, Tagami J. Shear bond strength of current adhesive systems to enamel, dentin and dentin-enamel junction region. Oper Dent 2003. 28585–590.
24. Yoshiyama M, Sano H, Ebisu S, Tagami J, Ciucchi B, Carvalho RM, Jonson MH, Pashley DH. Regional strengths of bonding agents to cervical sclerotic root dentin. J Dent Res 1996. 751404–1413.

Article information Continued

Copyright © 2005 Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry
(open-access) :

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Figure 1

Figure 1

Specimens; end of enamel rod (left) and side of enamel rod (right).

Figure 2

Figure 2

Specimen adhered to the shear testing apparatus.

Table 1

Gloup classification by adhesives and composites

Table 1

Table 2

Mean microshear bond strength to end of enamel rod (Unit: MPa, Mean ± S.D.)

Table 2

Group 1: All-Bond 2, Group 2: Single Bond, Group 3: Tyrian SPE/One-Step Plus, Group 4: Adper Prompt L-Pop Superscripts of the other letter indicate values of statistically significant difference by Tukey test (p < 0.05).

Table 3

Mean microshear bond strength to side of enamel rod (Unit: MPa, Mean ± S.D.)

Table 3

Group 1: All-Bond 2, Group 2: Single Bond, Group 3: Tyrian SPE/One-Step Plus, Group 4: Adper Prompt L-Pop

Superscripts of the other letter indicate values of statistically significant difference by Tukey test (p < 0.05).

Table 4

Statistical comparison between µSBS to end and side of enamel rods in each group by t-test

Table 4

Group 1: All-Bond 2, Group 2: Single Bond, Group 3: Tyrian SPE/One-Step Plus, Group 4: Adper Prompt L-Pop, *: statistical signigicant difference