Comparative enamel bond strength between light- and dual-cured composites bonded by self-etching adhesives

Young-Gon Cho; Sang-Hoon Yoo

doi:10.5395/JKACD.2007.32.1.001

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Restor Dent Endod > Volume 32(1); 2007 > Article

Original Article Comparative enamel bond strength between light- and dual-cured composites bonded by self-etching adhesives: Young-Gon Cho, Sang-Hoon Yoo; Journal of Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry 2007;32(1):1-8.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2007.32.1.001
Published online: January 31, 2007

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 501-825, Korea. Tel: 82-62-220-3840, 3845, Fax: 82-62-232-9064, ygcho@mail.chosun.ac.kr

• Received: May 7, 2006 • Revised: July 28, 2006 • Accepted: January 3, 2007

15 Views
0 Download

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
REFERENCES

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;17: 373-380.Article PubMed
2. Hannig M, Reinhardt KJ, Bott B. Self-etching primer vs phosphoric acid: an alternative concept for composite-to-enamel bonding. Oper Dent. 1999;24: 172-180.PubMed
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;16: 329-334.PubMed
4. Miyazaki M, Hinoura K, Honjo G, Onose H. Effect of self-etching primer application method on enamel bond strength. Am J Dent. 2002;15: 412-416.PubMed
5. Miyazaki M, Iwasaki K, Onose H. Adhesion of single application bonding systems to bovine enamel and dentin. Oper Dent. 2002;27: 88-94.PubMed
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;16: 414-420.PubMed
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;14: 205-210.PubMed
8. Frankenberger R, Kramer N, Petschelt A. Long-term effect of dentin primers on enamel bond strength and marginal adaptation. Oper Dent. 2000;25: 11-19.PubMed
9. Hara AT, Amaral CM, Pimenta LAF, Sinhoreti MAC. Shear bond strength of hydrophilic adhesive systems to enamel. Am J Dent. 1999;12: 181-184.PubMed
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;15: 132-143.PubMed
11. Fabianelli A, Kugel G, Ferrari M. Efficacy of self-etching primer on sealing margins of class II restorations. Am J Dent. 2003;16: 37-41.PubMed
12. Pashley DH, Tay FR. Aggressiveness of contemporary self-etching adhesives. Part II: etching effects on unground enamel. Dent Mater. 2001;17: 430-444.PubMed
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;15: 305-308.PubMed
14. Miyazaki S, Iwasaki K, Onose H, Moore BK. Enamel and dentin bond strength of single application bonding systems. Am J Dent. 2001;14: 361-366.PubMed
15. Perdigão J, Frankenberger R, Rosa BT, Breschi L. New trends in dentin/enamel adhesion. Am J Dent. 2000;13: 25D-30D.PubMed
16. Hu X, Marquis PM, Shortall AC. Two-body in vitro wear study of some current dental composites and amalgams. J Prosthet Dent. 1999;82: 214-220.Article PubMed
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;17: 542-556.PubMed
18. Bertolotti RL. Posterior composite technique utilizing directed polymerization shrinkage and a novel matrix. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent. 1991;3: 53-58.PubMed
19. Tay FR, Pashley DH, Peters MC. Adhesive permeability affects composite coupling to dentin treated with a self-etch adhesive. Oper Dent. 2003;28: 610-621.PubMed
20. Pfeifer C, Shih D, Braga RR. Compatibility of dental adhesives and dual-cured cements. Am J Dent. 2003;16: 235-238.PubMed
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;5: 91-105.PubMed
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;83: 290-295.Article PubMed PDF
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;28: 747-755.PubMed
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;75: 1404-1413.Article PubMed PDF
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;10: 236-240.Article PubMed
26. Kanemura N, Sano H, Tagami J. Tensile bond strength to and SEM evaluation of ground and intact enamel surfaces. J Dent. 1999;27: 523-530.Article PubMed
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;29: 309-316.PubMed
28. Yamauchi J. Study of dental adhesive containing phophoric acid methacrylate monomer. Jap J Dent Mater. 1986;5: 144-154.
29. Nyunt MM, Imai Y. Adhesion to dentin with resin using sulfinic acid initiator system. Dent Mater J. 1996;15: 175-182.Article PubMed
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;5: 27-40.PubMed
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;72: 122-126.

Figure 1

Bar graph showing microshear bond strengths for Z 250 and Luxacore to enamel.

Table 1

Gloup classification by self-etching adhesives

Table 2

Mean microshear bond strength (MPa) of Z 250 and Luxacore to enamel

Superscripts of the other letter indicate values of statistical significant difference by Tukey HSD and t test (p < 0.05).

Tables & Figures

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Comparative enamel bond strength between light- and dual-cured composites bonded by self-etching adhesives

J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2007;32(1):1-8. Published online January 31, 2007

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2007.32.1.001

XML Download

Figure

Comparative enamel bond strength between light- and dual-cured composites bonded by self-etching adhesives

Figure 1 Bar graph showing microshear bond strengths for Z 250 and Luxacore to enamel.

Figure 1

Comparative enamel bond strength between light- and dual-cured composites bonded by self-etching adhesives

Table 1

Gloup classification by self-etching adhesives

Table 2

Mean microshear bond strength (MPa) of Z 250 and Luxacore to enamel

Superscripts of the other letter indicate values of statistical significant difference by Tukey HSD and t test (p < 0.05).

Table 1 Gloup classification by self-etching adhesives

Table 2 Mean microshear bond strength (MPa) of Z 250 and Luxacore to enamel

Superscripts of the other letter indicate values of statistical significant difference by Tukey HSD and t test (p < 0.05).