The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of dual bonding technique by comparing micro-shear bond strength between two different luting methods of resin cement to tooth dentin. Three dentin bonding systems(All-Bond 2, One-Step, Clearfil SE Bond), two temporary cements (Propac, Freegenol) were used in this study.

In groups used conventional luting procedure, dentin surfaces were left untreated. In groups used dual bonding technique, three dentin bonding systems were applied to each dentin surface. All specimens were covered with each temporary cement. The temporary cements were removed and each group was treated using one of three different dentin bonding system. A resin cement was applied to the glass cylinder surface and the cylinder was bonded to the dentin surface. Then, micro-shear bond strength test was performed. For the evaluation of the morphology at the resin/dentin interface, SEM examination was also performed.

Conventional luting procedure showed higher micro-shear bond strengths than dual boning technique. However, there were no significant differences.

The aim of this study was to measure and compare the micro shear bond strengths of the following dentin bonding systems to the dentin surfaces under simulated pulpal pressure; All Bond 2®, Second®, AdheSE®, Adper Prompt L-Pop®. The occlusal surfaces of 180 extracted human molars were prepared so the dentin bonding surfaces could be exposed. The teeth were randomly assigned to 3 equal groups of 60 each and subdivided. The dentin surfaces were treated with the above mentioned bonding system and resin composite cylinders were built up under a simulated pulpal pressure when saline (Group II) or diluted bovine serum (Group III) was used as the pulpal fluid. As a control, the same procedures were performed in the dried dentin surfaces (Group I). After one day of storage in water, the micro shear bond strengths were measured using an EZ tester. Group II and III showed significantly lower shear bond strength than Group I statistically (p < 0.05). SEbond® and AdheSE® showed no difference among the different dentin condition. In the Adper Prompt L-Pop®, a simulated pulpal pressure were applied to the specimens using diluted bovine serum, which showed a higher strength than the specimens in which saline was used (p < 0.05).

The purpose of this study was to compare and to evaluate the combination use of 5 kinds of dentin adhesive systems and 5 kinds of composite resins using micro-shear bond test. Five adhesive systems (Prime & Bond NT (PBN), Onecoat bond (OC), Excite (EX), Syntac (SY), Clearfil SE bond (CS)) and five composite resins (Spectrum (SP), Synergy Compact (SC), Tetric Ceram (TC), Clearfil AP-X (CA), Z100 (Z1)) were used for this study (5 × 5 = 25group, n = 14/group). The slices of horizontally sectioned human tooth were bonded with each bonding system and each composite resin, and tested by a micro-shear bond strength test. These results were analyzed statistically. The mean micro-shear bond strength of dentin adhesive systems were in order of CS (22.642 MPa), SY (18.368 MPa), EX (14.599 MPa), OC (13.702 MPa), PBN (12.762 MPa). The mean bond strength of self-etching primer system group (CS, SY) in dentin was higher than that of self-priming adhesive system groups (PBN, EX, OC) significantly (P<0.05). The mean bond strength of composite resins was in order of SP (19.008 MPa), CA (17.532 MPa), SC (15.787 MPa), TC (15.068 MPa), Z1 (14.678 MPa). Micro-shear bond strength of SP was stronger than those of other composite resins significantly (P < 0.05). And those of TC and Z1 were weaker than other composite resins significantly (P < 0.05). No difference was found in micro-shear bond strength of composite resin in self-etching primer adhesive system groups (CS, SY) statistically. However, there was significant difference of micro-shear bond strength of composite resin groups in self-priming adhesive systems group (PBN, EX, OC). The combination of composite resin and dentin adhesive system recommended by manufacturer did not represent positive correlation. It didn’t seem to be a significant factor.

The objectiveness of this study was to evaluate whether low-viscosity composite can bond effectively to dentin surface without bonding resin. The low-viscosity composites being 50wt% filler content were made by the inclusion of bonding resin of two self-etching systems(Clearfil SE Bond, Unifil Bond) varied with contents as 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50wt%.

Exposed dentin surfaces of extracted 3rd molars are used. Dentin bond strengths were measured. The tests were carried out with a micro-shear device placed testing machine at a CHS of 1mm/min after a low-viscosity composite was filled into an iris cut from micro tygon tubing with internal diameter approximately 0.8mm and height of 1.0mm.

Flexural strength and modulus was increased with the addition of bonding resin.

Low viscosity composite including some functional monomer may be used as dentin bonding resin without an intermediary bonding agent. It makes a simplified bonding procedure and foresees the possibility of self-adhesive restorative material.