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 a flowable resin to enamel according to the different adhesive systems


Your browser does not support the NLM PubReader view.

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

Microshear bond strength of a flowable resin to enamel according to the different adhesive systems

Article information

Restor Dent Endod. 2011;36(1):50-58
Publication date (electronic) : 2011 January 31
doi : https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2011.36.1.50
Jeong-Ho Kim, DDS, PhD, Young-Gon Cho, DDS, MSD, PhD
Department of Conservative Dentistry, Chosun University School of Dentistry, Gwangju, Korea.
Correspondence to Young-Gon Cho, DDS, MSD, PhD. Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Chosun University School of Dentistry, 421 Seosuk-dong Dong-gu, Gwangju, Korea 501-825. TEL, +82-62-220-3845; FAX, +82-62-220-223-9064; ygcho@mail.chosun.ac.kr
Received 2010 October 25; Revised 2010 November 11; Accepted 2010 December 04.

Abstract

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to compare the microshear bond strength (uSBS) of two total-etch and four self-etch adhesive systems and a flowable resin to enamel.

Materials and Methods

Enamels of sixty human molars were used. They were divided into one of six equal groups (n = 10) by adhesives used; OS group (One-Step Plus), SB group (Single Bond), CE group (Clearfil SE Bond), TY group (Tyrian SPE/One-Step Plus), AP group (Adper Prompt L-Pop) and GB group (G-Bond).

After enamel surfaces were treated with six adhesive systems, a flowable composite resin (Filek Z 350) was bonded to enamel surface using Tygon tubes. the bonded specimens were subjected to uSBS testing and the failure modes of each group were observed under FE-SEM.

Results

1. The uSBS of SB group was statistically higher than that of all other groups, and the uSBS of OS, SE and AP group was statistically higher than that of TY and GB group (p < 0.05).

2. The uSBS for TY group was statistically higher than that for GB group (p < 0.05).

3. Adhesive failures in TY and GB group and mixed failures in SB group and SE group were often analysed. One cohesive failure was observed in OS, SB, SE and AP group, respectively.

Conclusions

Although adhesives using the same step were applied the enamel surface, the uSBS of a flowable resin to enamel was different.

Keywords: Adhesive systems; Enamel; Failure modes; Flowable resin; Microshear bond strength

References

1. Bayne SC, Thompson JY, Swift EJ Jr. A characterization of first-generation flowable composite. J Am Dent Assoc 1998. 129567–577.
2. Rada RE. The versatility of flowable composite resins. Dentistry Today 1998. 1778–83.
3. Estafan AM, Estafan D. Microleakage study of flowable composite resins. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2000. 21705–712.
4. Bonner PB. New developments in composite resins. Dentistry Today 1997. 1444–47.
5. Korkmaz Y, Ozel E, Attar N. Effect of flowable composite lining on microleakage and internal voids in class II composite restorations. J Adhes Dent 2007. 9189–194.
6. Burgess JO, Norling BK, Rawls HR, Ong JL. Directly placed esthetic restorative materials-The continuum. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1996. 17731–734.
7. Buonocore MG. Simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res 1955. 34849–853.
8. Besnault C, Attal JP. Influence of a simulated oral environment on dentin bond strength of two adhesive systems. Am J Dent 2001. 14367–372.
9. Inoue S, Vargas MA, Abe Y, Yoshida Y, Lambrechts P, Varherle G, Sano H, Van Meerbeek B. Microtensile bond strength of eleven contemporary adhesives to enamel. Am J Dent 2003. 16329–334.
10. Cardoso PFC, Meloncini MA, Placido E, Lima JDO, Tavares AU. Influence of the substrate and load application method of the shear bond strength of two adhesive systems. Oper Dent 2003. 28388–394.
11. Dickens SH, Milos MF. Relationship of dentin shear bond strengths to different laboratory test designs. Am J Dent 2002. 15185–192.
12. Zheng L, Pereira PNR, Nakajima M, Sano H, Tagmi J. Relationship between adhesive tickness and microtensile bond strength. Oper Dent 2001. 2697–104.
13. 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.
14. Torii Y, Itou K, Hikasa R, Iwata S, Nishitani Y. Enamel tensile bond strength and morphology of resin enamel interface created by acid etching system with or without moisture and self etching priming system. J Oral Rehabil 2002. 29528–533.
15. Kanemura N, Sano H, Tagami J. Tensile bond strength to and SEM evaluation of ground and intact enamel surfaces. J Dent 1999. 27523–530.
16. 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.
17. Toledano M, Osorio R, De Leonardi G, Rosales-Leal JI, Ceballos L, Cabrerizo-Vilchez MA. Influence of selfetching primer on the resin adhesion to enamel and dentin. Am J Dent 2001. 14205–210.
18. Perdigao J, Geraldeli S. Bonding characteristics of self etching adhesives to intact versus prepared enamel. J Esthet Restor Dent 2003. 1532–41.
19. Breschi L, Perdigao J, Mazzotti G. Ultramorphology and shear bond strengths of self-etching adhesives on enamel. J Dent Res 1999. 78475. Abstract #2957.
20. Vargas MA. Interfacial ultrastructure of a self-etching primer/adhesive. J Dent Res 1999. 78224. Abstract #950.
21. Ferrari M, Mason PN, Vichi A, Davidson CL. Role of hybridization on leakage and bond strength. Am J Dent 2000. 13329–336.
22. Sano H, Shono T, Sonoda H, Takatsu T, Ciucchi B, Carvalho RM, Pashely DH. Relationship between surface area for adhesion and tensile bond strength evaluation of a mircrotensile bond test. Dent Mater 1994. 10236–240.
23. Frankenberger R, Karmer N, Petsechelt A. Long-term effect of dentin primers on enamel bond strength and marginal adaptation. Oper Dent 2000. 2511–19.
24. Nam KY, Kim JB, Jang BC, Kwin TY, Kim KH. Effect of dentin bonding agents on bonding durability of a flowable composite to dentin. Dent Mater J 2007. 26224–231.
25. Han L, Okamoto A, Fukushima M, Okiji T. Enamel micro-cracks produced around restorations with flowable composites. Dent Mater J 2005. 2483–91.
26. Reis AF, Oliviera MT, Giannini M, De Goes MF, Rueggeberg . Effect of organic solvents on one-bottle adhesives, bond strength to enamel and dentin. Oper Dent 2003. 28700–706.
27. Shimada Y, Iwamoto N, Kawashima M, Burrow MF, Tagami J. Shear bond strength of current adhesive systmes to enamel, dentin, dentin-enamel junction region. Oper Dent 2003. 28585–590.
28. Perdigao J, Gomes G, Duarte S Jr, Lopes MM. Enamel bond strengths of pairs of adhesives from the same manufacturer. Oper Dent 2005. 30492–499.
29. Moura SK, Pelizza A, Bianco KD, de Goes MF, Loguercio AD, Reis A, Grande RH. Does the acidity of self-etching primers affect bond strength and surface morphology of enamel? J Adhes Dent 2006. 875–83.
30. Cho BH, Dickens SH. Effect of aceton content of single solution dentin bonding agents on the adhesive layer thickness and microtensile bond strength. Dent Mater 2004. 20107–115.
31. Van Meerbeek B, Vargas M, Inoue S, Yoshida Y, Pneumans M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Adhesives and cements to promote preservation dentistry. Oper Dent Suppl 2000. 6119–144.

Article information Continued

Copyright © 2011 Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry

Figure 1

Figure 1

Representative adhesive failure to enamel surface in OS group (×110).

Figure 2

Figure 2

Representative mixed failure to enamel surface in SB group (×110).

Figure 3

Figure 3

Representative mixed failure to enamel surface in SE group (×100).

Figure 4

Figure 4

Representative adhesive failure to enamel surface in TY group (×110).

Figure 5

Figure 5

Representative mixed failure to enamel surface in AP group (×120).

Figure 6

Figure 6

Representative adhesive failure to enamel surface in GB group (×130).

Table 1

Composition and pH of adhesive systems

Table 1

BPDM, bisphenyldimethacrylate; HEMA, hydroxyethylmethacrylate; Bis-GMA, bisphenol-glycidyl methacrylate; DMA, dimethacrylate; 10-MDP, 10-Methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate; CP, camphoroquinone; 4-MET, 4-methacryloxyethyl trimellitate; UDMA, urethane dimethacrylate.

Table 2

Group classification and adhesive systems

Table 2

Table 3

Microshear bond strength (MPa) and failure mode analysis of each group

Table 3

Different letters (a,b,c,d) indicate statistically significant difference between groups at p=0.05 (by Tukey HSD).