Comparative enamel bond strength between light- and dual-cured composites bonded by self-etching adhesives
Article information
Restor Dent Endod. 2007;32(1):1-8
Publication date (electronic) : 2007 January 31
doi :
https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2007.32.1.001
Received 2006 May 07; Revised 2006 July 28; Accepted 2007 January 03.
Abstract
This study compared the microshear bond strength (µSBS) of light-cured and dual-cured composites to enamel bonded with three self-etching adhesives. Crown segments of extracted human molars were cut mesiodistally, and 1 mm thickness of specimen was made. They were assigned to three groups by used adhesives: Xeno group (Xeno III), Adper group (Adper Prompt L-Pop), and AQ group (AQ Bond). Each adhesive was applied to cut enamel surface as per manufacturer's instruction. Light-cured (Filtek Z 250) or dual-cured composite (Luxacore) was bonded to enamel 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 mean µSBS (n = 20 for each group) was statistically compared using two-way ANOVA, Tukey HSD, and t test at the 0.05 probability level. The results of this study were as follows;
1. The µSBS of light-cured composite was significantly higher than that of dual-cured composite when same adhesive was applied to enamel.
2. For Z 250, the µSBS of AQ group (9.95 ± 2.51 MPa) to enamel was significantly higher than that of Adper goup (6.74 ± 1.80 MPa), but not significantly different with Xeno group (7.73 ± 2.01 MPa).
3. For Luxacore, the µSBS of Xeno group (5.19 ± 1.32 MPa) to enamel was significantly higher than that of Adper goup (3.41 ± 1.19 MPa), but not significantly different with AQ group (4.50 ± 0.96 MPa).
Keywords: Microshear bond strength; Light-cured composite; Dual-cured composite; Enamel; Self-etching adhesive
References
1. Frankenberger R, Perdigao J, Rosa BT, Lopes M. No-bottle" vs "multi-bottle" dentin adhesives- a microtensile bond strength and morphological study. Dent Mater 2001. 17373–380.
2. 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.
3. Inoue S, Vargas MA, 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.
4. 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.
5. Miyazaki M, Iwasaki K, Onose H. Adhesion of single application bonding systems to bovine enamel and dentin. Oper Dent 2002. 2788–94.
6. De Munck J, Van Meerbeek B, Satoshi I, Vargas M, Yoshida Y, Armstrong S, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Microtensile bond strengths of one- and two-step self-etch adhesives to bur-cut enamel and dentin. Am J Dent 2003. 16414–420.
7. 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.
8. Frankenberger R, Kramer N, Petschelt A. Long-term effect of dentin primers on enamel bond strength and marginal adaptation. Oper Dent 2000. 2511–19.
9. Hara AT, Amaral CM, Pimenta LAF, Sinhoreti MAC. Shear bond strength of hydrophilic adhesive systems to enamel. Am J Dent 1999. 12181–184.
10. Ikemura K, Kouro Y, Endo T. Effect of 4-acryloxyethyltrimellitic acid in a self-etching primer on bonding to ground dentine. Dent Mater J 1996. 15132–143.
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. Pashley DH, Tay FR. Aggressiveness of contemporary self-etching adhesives. Part II: etching effects on unground enamel. Dent Mater 2001. 17430–444.
13. 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.
14. Miyazaki S, Iwasaki K, Onose H, Moore BK. Enamel and dentin bond strength of single application bonding systems. Am J Dent 2001. 14361–366.
15. Perdigão J, Frankenberger R, Rosa BT, Breschi L. New trends in dentin/enamel adhesion. Am J Dent 2000. 1325D–30D.
16. Hu X, Marquis PM, Shortall AC. Two-body in vitro wear study of some current dental composites and amalgams. J Prosthet Dent 1999. 82214–220.
17. Sanares AM, Itthagarum A, King NM, Tay FR. Adverse surface interaction between one-bottle light-cured adhesives and chemical-cured composites. Dent Mater 2001. 17542–556.
18. Bertolotti RL. Posterior composite technique utilizing directed polymerization shrinkage and a novel matrix. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1991. 353–58.
19. Tay FR, Pashley DH, Peters MC. Adhesive permeability affects composite coupling to dentin treated with a self-etch adhesive. Oper Dent 2003. 28610–621.
20. Pfeifer C, Shih D, Braga RR. Compatibility of dental adhesives and dual-cured cements. Am J Dent 2003. 16235–238.
21. Tay FR, Suh BJ, Pashley DH, Prati C, Chuang SF, Li F. Factors contributing to the incompatibility between simplified-step adhesives and self-cured or dual-cured composites. Part II. Single-bottle, total-etch adhesive. J Adhes Dent 2003. 591–105.
22. Tay FR, Lai CNS, Chersoni S, Pashley DH, Mark YF, Suppa P, Prati C, King NM. Osmotic blistering in enamel bonded with One-Step self-etch adhesives. J Dent Res 2004. 83290–295.
23. Cheong C, King NM, Pashley DH, Ferrari M, Toledano M, Tay FR. Incompatibility of self-etch adhesives with chemical/dual-cured composites: two-step vs one-step systems. Oper Dent 2003. 28747–755.
24. Yoshiyama M, Sano H, Ebisu S, Tagami J, Ciucchi B, Carvalho RM, Johnson MH, Pashley DH. Regional strengths of bonding agents to cervical sclerotic dentin. J Dent Res 1996. 751404–1413.
25. 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 a microtensile bond test. Dent Mater 1994. 10236–240.
26. Kanemura N, Sano H, Tagami J. Tensile bond strength to and SEM evaluation of ground and intact enamel surfaces. J Dent 1999. 27523–530.
27. Tay FR, Pashley DH, King NM, Carvalho RM, Tsai J, Lai SCN, Marquezini L. Aggressiveness of self-etch adhesives on unground enamel. Oper Dent 2004. 29309–316.
28. Yamauchi J. Study of dental adhesive containing phophoric acid methacrylate monomer. Jap J Dent Mater 1986. 5144–154.
29. Nyunt MM, Imai Y. Adhesion to dentin with resin using sulfinic acid initiator system. Dent Mater J 1996. 15175–182.
30. Tay FR, Pashley DH, Yiu CK, Sanares AM, Wei SH. Factors contributing to the incompatibility between simplified-step adhesives and chemically-cured or dual-cured composites. Part I. Single-bottle self-etching adhesive. J Adhes Dent 2003. 527–40.
31. Ikemura K, Endo T. Effect of adhesion of new polymerization initiator systems comprising 5-monosubstituted barbituric acids, aromatic sulphinate amides, and tert-butyl peroxymaleic acid in dental adhesive resin. J Applied Polymer Science 1999. 72122–126.
Article information Continued
Copyright © 2007 Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry
