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

Jeong-Ho Kim; Young-Gon Cho

doi:10.5395/JKACD.2011.36.1.50

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Restor Dent Endod > Volume 36(1); 2011 > Article

Basic Research Microshear bond strength of a flowable resin to enamel according to the different adhesive systems: Jeong-Ho Kim, DDS, PhD, Young-Gon Cho, DDS, MSD, PhD; Journal of Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry 2011;36(1):50-58.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2011.36.1.50
Published online: January 31, 2011

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: October 25, 2010 • Revised: November 11, 2010 • Accepted: December 4, 2010

19 Views
0 Download

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
REFERENCES

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;129: 567-577.PubMed
2. Rada RE. The versatility of flowable composite resins. Dentistry Today. 1998;17: 78-83.
3. Estafan AM, Estafan D. Microleakage study of flowable composite resins. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2000;21: 705-712.PubMed
4. Bonner PB. New developments in composite resins. Dentistry Today. 1997;14: 44-47.
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;9: 189-194.PubMed
6. Burgess JO, Norling BK, Rawls HR, Ong JL. Directly placed esthetic restorative materials-The continuum. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 1996;17: 731-734.PubMed
7. Buonocore MG. Simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res. 1955;34: 849-853.Article PubMed PDF
8. Besnault C, Attal JP. Influence of a simulated oral environment on dentin bond strength of two adhesive systems. Am J Dent. 2001;14: 367-372.PubMed
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;16: 329-334.PubMed
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;28: 388-394.PubMed
11. Dickens SH, Milos MF. Relationship of dentin shear bond strengths to different laboratory test designs. Am J Dent. 2002;15: 185-192.PubMed
12. Zheng L, Pereira PNR, Nakajima M, Sano H, Tagmi J. Relationship between adhesive tickness and microtensile bond strength. Oper Dent. 2001;26: 97-104.PubMed
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;27: 403-409.PubMed
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;29: 528-533.Article PubMed
15. 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
16. 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
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;14: 205-210.PubMed
18. Perdigao J, Geraldeli S. Bonding characteristics of self etching adhesives to intact versus prepared enamel. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2003;15: 32-41.Article PubMed
19. Breschi L, Perdigao J, Mazzotti G. Ultramorphology and shear bond strengths of self-etching adhesives on enamel. J Dent Res. 1999;78: 475. Abstract #2957.
20. Vargas MA. Interfacial ultrastructure of a self-etching primer/adhesive. J Dent Res. 1999;78: 224. Abstract #950.
21. Ferrari M, Mason PN, Vichi A, Davidson CL. Role of hybridization on leakage and bond strength. Am J Dent. 2000;13: 329-336.PubMed
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;10: 236-240.PubMed
23. Frankenberger R, Karmer N, Petsechelt A. Long-term effect of dentin primers on enamel bond strength and marginal adaptation. Oper Dent. 2000;25: 11-19.PubMed
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;26: 224-231.PubMed
25. Han L, Okamoto A, Fukushima M, Okiji T. Enamel micro-cracks produced around restorations with flowable composites. Dent Mater J. 2005;24: 83-91.Article PubMed
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;28: 700-706.PubMed
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;28: 585-590.PubMed
28. Perdigao J, Gomes G, Duarte S Jr, Lopes MM. Enamel bond strengths of pairs of adhesives from the same manufacturer. Oper Dent. 2005;30: 492-499.PubMed
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;8: 75-83.PubMed
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;20: 107-115.PubMed
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;6: 119-144.

Figure 1

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

Figure 2

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

Figure 3

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

Figure 4

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

Figure 5

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

Figure 6

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

Table 1

Composition and pH of adhesive systems

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 3

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

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

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

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

J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2011;36(1):50-58. Published online January 31, 2011

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2011.36.1.50

XML Download

Figure

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

Figure 1 Representative adhesive failure to enamel surface in OS group (×110).

Figure 2 Representative mixed failure to enamel surface in SB group (×110).

Figure 3 Representative mixed failure to enamel surface in SE group (×100).

Figure 4 Representative adhesive failure to enamel surface in TY group (×110).

Figure 5 Representative mixed failure to enamel surface in AP group (×120).

Figure 6 Representative adhesive failure to enamel surface in GB group (×130).

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

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

Table 1

Composition and pH of adhesive systems

Table 2

Group classification and adhesive systems

Table 3

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

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

Table 1 Composition and pH of adhesive systems

Table 2 Group classification and adhesive systems

Table 3 Microshear bond strength (MPa) and failure mode analysis of each group

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