scholarly journals Microleakage of contemporary composite systems in dentin cavities

2009 ◽  
Vol 62 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 295-303 ◽  
Author(s):  
Igor Stojanac ◽  
Milan Drobac ◽  
Ljubomir Petrovic ◽  
Ivana Stojsin
Keyword(s):  
Dwell Time ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Pulp Chamber ◽  
Dye Penetration ◽  
Composite Systems ◽  
Sealing Ability ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Self Etch

This study evaluated microleakage in vitro of self-etch and multi-step, total-etch adhesive systems. Ninety extracted non-carious human molars were randomly assigned to nine groups (n=10) and restored with nine different composite systems: Gluma CPS/Charisma, Syntac Sprint/Tetric Ceram, 3M Single Bond/Silux, Admira Bond/Admira, Optibond Solo Plus/Herculite, Trendy Bond/Saremco, Excite/Tetric Ceram, Syntac Sprint/Compoglass and Promt-L-Pop/Silux. Cavities (2 mm diameter/2 mm deep) were prepared on the facial and lingual surfaces of each tooth previously abraded with a silicon-carbide abrasion discs to produce two level dentin surfaces with whole margins in dentin.Each group of composite systems was treated following the manufacturer's instructions. After they were finished and polished, the specimens were subjected to 100 thermal cycles in baths of 4 degrees+/-2 degrees C and 58 degrees+/-2 degrees C with 60 seconds of dwell time for each bath. After the thermocycling, the specimens were sealed with acid-resistant varnish, leaving a 1-mm window around the cervical margin interface, and immersed in 1% methylene blue buffered solution for 4 hours. Then the specimens were sectioned longitudinally in half and evaluated under stereomicroscopy at 30 times magnification, using inserted millimeter measurer. Each specimen was measured for dye penetration, thickness of composite filling and distance from the bottom of cavity to the pulp chamber. The data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Pearson t- test. Syntac Sprint/Tetric Ceram, 3M Single Bond/Silux, Admira Bond/Admira, Optibond Solo Plus/Herculite and Gluma CPS/Charisma showed the least microleakage at the occlusal part of the cavity. There was no significant difference of microleakage at gingival part of cavity for all tested composite systems and the best sealing ability showed 3M Single Bond/Silux. Self-etch and multi-step, total-etch adhesive systems showed more or less similar microleakage 'in vitro' conditions and marginal sealing ability of all tested composite systems was significantly lower at gingival margins of cavities.

scholarly journals Microshear Bond Strength of Different Adhesive Systems to Dentin

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Valizadeh ◽  
Aida Moradi ◽  
Mansooreh Mirazei ◽  
Hooman Amiri ◽  
Mohammad Javad Kharazifard
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Microshear Bond Strength ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Composite Cylinders

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the microshear bond strength (µSBS) of various adhesive systems to dentin. Materials and Methods: In this in vitro experimental study, 60 sound human third molars were divided into four groups. Dentin discs were prepared of middle-third dentin measuring 4 mm in diameter and 2 mm in thickness. Dentin surfaces were bonded with one of the four types of adhesives: (A) Single Bond (3M ESPE), Scotchbond Universal (3M ESPE) in etch and rinse (B) and self-etch (C) modes and (D) Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray Noritake Dental). After the application of adhesive systems according to the manufacturers’ instructions, composite cylinders (Vit-l-escence) were bonded to dentin surfaces. The μSBS test was performed using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test (α=0.05). Results: The µSBS was the highest in self-etch Scotchbond Universal (15.8±6.08 MPa) followed by Clearfil SE Bond (15.24±4.6 MPa), etch and rinse Scotchbond Universal (11.68±4.07MPa) and Single Bond (11.24±3.74 MPa). A significant difference was only found between Single Bond and etch and rinse Scotchbond Universal groups (P=0.04). Conclusion: Based on the results of this study, application of Scotchbond Universal in self-etch mode provides a reliable bond to dentin.

scholarly journals Microshear Bond Strength of Different Adhesive Systems to Dentin

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Valizadeh ◽  
Aida Moradi ◽  
Mansooreh Mirazei ◽  
Hooman Amiri ◽  
Mohammad Javad Kharazifard
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Microshear Bond Strength ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Composite Cylinders

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the microshear bond strength (µSBS) of various adhesive systems to dentin. Materials and Methods: In this in vitro experimental study, 60 sound human third molars were divided into four groups. Dentin discs were prepared of middle-third dentin measuring 4 mm in diameter and 2 mm in thickness. Dentin surfaces were bonded with one of the four types of adhesives: (A) Single Bond (3M ESPE), Scotchbond Universal (3M ESPE) in etch and rinse (B) and self-etch (C) modes and (D) Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray Noritake Dental). After the application of adhesive systems according to the manufacturers’ instructions, composite cylinders (Vit-l-escence) were bonded to dentin surfaces. The μSBS test was performed using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test (α=0.05). Results: The µSBS was the highest in self-etch Scotchbond Universal (15.8±6.08 MPa) followed by Clearfil SE Bond (15.24±4.6 MPa), etch and rinse Scotchbond Universal (11.68±4.07MPa) and Single Bond (11.24±3.74 MPa). A significant difference was only found between Single Bond and etch and rinse Scotchbond Universal groups (P=0.04). Conclusion: Based on the results of this study, application of Scotchbond Universal in self-etch mode provides a reliable bond to dentin.

scholarly journals A comparison of microleakage in self-etch fissure sealants and conventional fissure sealants with total-etch or self-etch adhesive systems

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (02) ◽  
pp. 242-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Azam Nahvi ◽  
Alireza Razavian ◽  
Hoorieh Abedi ◽  
Jamshid Yazdani Charati
Keyword(s):  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Conventional Technique ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Fissure Sealants ◽  
Fissure Sealant ◽  
Acid Etch ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Group 1

ABSTRACT Objective: The present study was conducted to compare microleakage in self-etching fissure sealants and conventional fissure sealants with total-etch or self-etch adhesive systems. Settings and Design: This experimental in vitro study was conducted on 60 healthy third molars extracted from humans. The first group received Acid etch + Clinpro sealant, the second group received Acid etch + Single bond 2 + Clinpro sealant, the third group received Single bond universal (self-etching bonding) + Clinpro sealant, and the fourth group received prevent seal self-etching sealant. Materials and Methods: An incision was made on the teeth after they were immersed in methylene blue 5%. The samples were then examined under a stereomicroscope and the dye penetration rate was measured based on the Williams and Winter criteria. Statistical Analysis Used: The Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney tests were used for data analysis in SPSS-18 (P < 0.05). Results: Group 1 which was treated with the conventional technique (acid + fissure sealant) had the highest rate of microleakage compared to Groups 2 and 3 (P < 0.001). Conclusion: The results showed that the use of bonding results in a significant reduction in the microleakage of fissure sealants. The microleakage caused when using self-etch fissure sealant was not different from that caused by the use of the conventional method.

scholarly journals Effect of Salivary Contamination on the Bond Strength of Total-etch and Self-etch Adhesive Systems: An in vitro Study

2012 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 655-660 ◽  
Author(s):  
LM Ranganath ◽  
AG Rajesh ◽  
Robert M Justin ◽  
Hemalatha Paranthaman ◽  
Ranjith P Varghese
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Bonding Agents ◽  
Dentin Bonding ◽  
Etched Surface ◽  
Self Etch

ABSTRACT Aim To evaluate the influence of salivary contamination during dentin bonding procedures on shear bond strength and to investigate the effect of contaminant-removing treatments on the recovery of bond strength for two dentin-bonding agents. Materials and methods Seventy-seven human maxillary and mandibular molars were randomly divided into two groups for total-etch adhesive (Single bond-3M ESPE, USA) and self-etch primer (UniFil Bond-GC, Tokyo, Japan) and subjected to contamination with saliva. The data for each group were subjected to one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by the Student Newman-Keuls test to make comparisons among the groups (p < 0.05). Results Salivary contamination had less adverse effect on the shear bond strength of single bond total-etch adhesive when it was blot dried or washed. UniFil bond was tolerant of salivary contamination, except when contamination occurred after application of the primer. Conclusion In single bond adhesive, when the etched surface is contaminated by saliva, blotting the surface and applying the primer can recover the bond strength. Complete drying of the salivary contaminated surface should be avoided. In the UniFil bond groups, the repriming treatment (UF-V and UF-VI) resulted in the recovery of shear bond strength in the specimens contaminated after priming. Clinical significance The results of this study showed that total- etch adhesive (single bond) was not affected by salivary contamination on the etched surface when the bonding surface was kept moist. Self-etch adhesive (UniFil bond) also tolerated salivary contamination except when the contamination occurred after application of the primer. How to cite this article Justin RM, Paranthaman H, Rajesh AG, Varghese RP, Ranganath LM. Effect of Salivary Contamination on the Bond Strength of Total-etch and Selfetch Adhesive Systems: An in vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012;13(5):655-660.

scholarly journals Effect of Different Adhesion Protocols on the Shear Bond Strength of Universal Adhesive Systems to Sound and Artificial Caries-Affected Dentin

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Omnia M. Sami ◽  
Essam A. Naguib ◽  
Rasha H. Afifi ◽  
Shaymaa M. Nagi
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Failure Modes ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Universal Adhesive ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Self Etch

Abstract Objective Bonding to different dentin substrates influences resin composite restoration outcomes. This study investigated the influence of different adhesion protocols on the shear bond strength of universal adhesive systems to sound and artificial caries-affected dentin (CAD). Materials and Methods Occlusal enamel of 80 premolars were wet grinded to obtain flat midcoronal dentin. Specimens were equally divided according to the substrate condition: sound and CAD by subjecting to pH-cycling for 14 days. Each dentin substrate was bonded with the adhesive systems used in this study: Single Bond universal adhesive or Prime&Bond universal (applied either in etch-and-rinse or self-etch adhesion protocol). Adhesive systems were utilized according to manufacturers’ instructions, then resin composite was built up. Specimens were tested for shear bond strength. The data were analyzed by three-way analysis of variance, and failure modes were determined using stereomicroscope. Results There was no statistically significant difference between the two tested adhesive systems on artificially created CAD with different adhesion protocols. On sound dentin, Single Bond universal, either in the etch-and-rinse or self-etch adhesion protocols, revealed higher statistically significant shear bond strength mean values compared with CAD. Conclusion Single Bond universal adhesive in an etch-and-rinse adhesion protocol improved only bonding to sound dentin, while no added positive effect for the etching step with Prime&Bond universal adhesive was found when bonded to both sound and CAD substrates. The influence of CAD on the performance of the universal adhesives was material-dependent.

scholarly journals Microleakage at the composite-repair interface: effect of different adhesive systems

2004 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 219-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Nóbrega Cavalcanti ◽  
Catarina Lavigne ◽  
Céres Mendonça Fontes ◽  
Paula Mathias
Keyword(s):  
Methylene Blue ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Bonding Mechanism ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Composite Repair ◽  
Dye Penetration ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Bonding Systems

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the microleakage at the composite-repair interface using different bonding systems. Composite resin specimens (Filtek Z250 - 3M-ESPE) were divided into five groups (n=20) according to the following bonding mechanism: C - control - etching with 35% phosphoric acid; SB1 - etching and application of one coat of Single Bond (3M-ESPE); SB2 - etching and application of two coats of Single Bond (3M-ESPE); SMP1 - etching, application of Scotchbond Multi-Purpose primer (3M-ESPE) followed by the adhesive and, SMP2 - etching, application of Scotchbond Multi-Purpose adhesive (3M-ESPE) without the primer. Thereafter, all groups received new resin application. Samples were thermocycled (500 cycles / 5ºC - 55ºC [±2]) and immersed for 4h in 2% methylene blue buffered dye solution (7.0 pH). Three examiners measured the extent of microleakage in a stereoscope microscope, using four representative scores. For all experimental groups, no significant difference in microleakage at the repair was identified by Kruskal-Wallis test (p > 0.05). Therefore, different types of bonding systems presented the same effect on the dye penetration along the repair interface.

Evaluation of the Bond Strength of Different Pulp Capping Materials to Dental Adhesive Systems: An In Vitro Study

2021 ◽  
pp. 232020682199798
Author(s):  
Sema Yazici Akbiyik ◽  
Elif Pınar Bakir ◽  
S¸eyhmus Bakir
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Pulp Capping ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Fracture Types ◽  
Self Etch

Aim: To evaluate the bond strengths of pulp capping materials (Dycal, ProRoot MTA, Biodentine, TheraCal LC, Calcimol LC, and ApaCal ART) and different adhesive systems (Gluma 2 Bond, Clearfil SE Protect, Gluma Self Etch, Clearfil S 3 Bond Plus, Gluma Bond Universal, Clearfil S 3 Bond Universal). Materials and Methods: Two hundred fifty-two acrylic blocks were prepared in which cylindrical cavities of 4 × 2 mm 3 were formed. Pulp capping materials were placed in the cavities. Different adhesive systems were applied to each pulp capping material group. After applying the composite resin, the shear bond strength (SBS) values of the specimens were determined in the Instron test device. Fracture types were evaluated using a stereomicroscope and a scanning electron microscope. Data were analyzed by Shapiro–Wilk’s and Kruskal–Wallis H test. Results: There is a statistically significant difference between pulp capping materials in terms of SBS values ( P < .05). Dycal’s SBS was found significantly lower than other materials, and the highest bond strength was observed in Calcimol LC material. Although there is no statistically significant difference ( P > .05) between the adhesive agent groups in terms of SBS, Gluma 2 Bond showed the highest bond strength value. Conclusion: In traditional pulp capping materials such as Dycal, MTA, and Biodentine, using a two-step self-etch adhesive system can result in higher bond strength values. In resin-based TheraCal LC,, ApaCal ART, and Calcimol LC materials, it may be recommended to use a two-step etch and rinse adhesive system.

scholarly journals Effect Of Chitosan Treatment On Shear Bond Strength Of Composite To Deep Dentin Using Self-Etch And Total-Etch Adhesive Systems

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fateme Vasei ◽  
Farahnaz Sharafeddin
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Self Etch

Objective: To assess the shear bond strength (SBS) of resin composite to deep dentin, using 1 and 2.5% chitosan pretreatment as well as different adhesive systems. Material and Methods: 80 human maxillary molars were randomly divided to eight groups according to the type of adhesive system and dentin pretreatment (n = 10): I) two-step self-etch system (Clearfil SE bond); II) two-step etch-andrinse system (Adper single bond 2); III) 2.5% chitosan + Clearfil SE bond; IV) 2.5% chitosan +etch + Adper single bond 2; V) etch + 2.5% chitosan + Adper single bond 2; VI) 1% chitosan + Clearfil SE bond; VII) 1% chitosan + etch + Adper single bond 2; VIII) etch + 1% chitosan + Adper single bond 2 (chitosan solution (w/v): 2.5 g and 1 g of chitosan (Sigma Aldrich, USA) was dissolved in 100 ml of 1% acetic acid). Plastic molds were positioned on dentin and filled with composite (Z350, 3M ESPE, USA). SBS (MPa) was tested using a universal testing machine. ANOVA tests, Tukey’s test, and independent t test were used to analyze data (p < 0.05). Results: The highest SBS value among self-etch groups was observed with 1% chitosan (p = 0.001). In the etch-and-rinse group, the SBS of 1% chitosan was significantly lower than the other groups. Chitosan treatment following acid etching led to higher SBS in comparison to when chitosan was applied before etching, with the significant difference in 1% concentration (p = 0.030). A predominance of mix fractures was observed in dentin. Conclusion: Improved dentin bond strength can be achieved through immediate dentin pretreatment with 1% chitosan in self-etch adhesive systems. Chitosan Pretreatment may not be advantageous for etch-and-rinse adhesive systems. Keywords Adhesive system; Chitosan; Deep dentin; Shear strength.

Enamel Wetness Effects on Microshear Bond Strength of Different Bonding Agents (Adhesive Systems): An in vitro Comparative Evaluation Study

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 399-407
Author(s):  
Girish Kulkarni ◽  
Vinay K Mishra
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Evaluation Study ◽  
Enamel Surface ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Bonding Agents ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Post Hoc ◽  
Microshear Bond Strength

ABSTRACT Aims The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of enamel wetness on microshear bond strength using different adhesive systems. Objectives To evaluate microshear bond strength of three bonding agents on dry enamel; to evaluate microshear bond strength of three bonding agents on wet enamel; and to compare microshear bond strength of three different bonding agents on dry and wet enamel. Materials and methods Sixty extracted noncarious human premolars were selected for this study. Flat enamel surfaces of approximately 3 mm were obtained by grinding the buccal surfaces of premolars with water-cooled diamond disks. This study evaluated one etch-and-rinse adhesive system (Single Bond 2) and two self-etching adhesive systems (Clearfil SE Bond and Xeno-V). The specimens were divided into two groups (n = 30). Group I (dry) was air-dried for 30 seconds and in group II (wet) surfaces were blotted with absorbent paper to remove excess water. These groups were further divided into six subgroups (n = 10) according to the adhesives used. The resin composite, Filtek Z 250, was bonded to flat enamel surfaces that had been treated with one of the adhesives, following the manufacturer's instructions. After being stored in water at 37°C for 24 hours, bonded specimens were stressed in universal testing machine (Fig. 3) at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The data were evaluated with one-way and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), t-test, and Tukey's Multiple Post hoc tests (α = 0.05). Results The two-way ANOVA and Tukey's Multiple Post hoc tests showed significant differences among adhesive systems, but wetness did not influence microshear bond strength (p = 0.1762). The one-way ANOVA and t-test showed that the all-in-one adhesive (Xeno-V) was the only material influenced by the presence of water on the enamel surface. Xeno-V showed significantly higher microshear bond strength when the enamel was kept wet. Single Bond 2 adhesive showed significantly higher microshear bond strength as compared with Xeno-V adhesive but no significant difference when compared with Clearfil SE Bond adhesive in dry enamel. Single Bond 2 adhesive showed no significant difference in microshear bond strength as compared with self-etching adhesive systems (Clearfil SE Bond and Xeno-V), when the enamel was kept wet. Conclusion From the findings of the results, it was concluded that self-etching adhesives were not negatively affected by the presence of water on the enamel surface. Clinical significance The all-in-one adhesive showed different behavior depending on whether the enamel surface was dry or wet. So the enamel surface should not be desiccated, when self-etching adhesives are used. How to cite this article Kulkarni G, Mishra VK. Enamel Wetness Effects on Microshear Bond Strength of Different Bonding Agents (Adhesive Systems): An in vitro Comparative Evaluation Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(5):399-407.

scholarly journals Effect of an erosive challenge on the enamel-composite resin interface in primary teeth: an in vitro study

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 688
Author(s):  
Jonas Almeida Rodrigues ◽  
Cristiane Meira Assunção ◽  
Rogério Nanini Macanhão ◽  
Leila Canarin Vieira ◽  
Angela Scarparo
Keyword(s):  
Primary Teeth ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Incomplete Removal ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Composite Interface ◽  
Self Etch

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether different adhesive systems (etch-and-rinse or self-etch) render enamel-composite resin interface in primary teeth more susceptible to erosive challenge. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty enamel specimens from caries-free primary incisors were selected and cavities were prepared for restoration. According to adhesive protocols, specimens were divided into groups: G1 (Adper Single Bond 2), G2 (Adper SE Plus), and G3 (35% phosphoric acid + Adper SE Plus). After restorative procedures, half of the surface of enamel and restorative material was protected with nail varnish, thus, only half of the sample was subjected to the erosive challenge (immersion in Coca-Cola®, 3 cycles of 5 minutes, for 5 days). Samples were analysed quantitatively through Knoop microhardness, the indentations were made on enamel-composite interface. Data were submitted to statistical analysis (Student’s t test, two-way ANOVA, p<0.05). RESULTS: It showed that different adhesive systems did not significantly affect the percentage of superficial microhardness change after an erosive challenge (p=0.387). However, although no significant difference was observed, G2 (self-etch system) showed the lowest percentage of superficial microhardness change. CONCLUSION: The use of different adhesive systems did not influence superficial microhardness of enamel-composite interface after an erosive challenge. The incomplete removal of the smear layer, though self-etch systems, suggests a greater ability to withstand the erosive challenge on the enamel-resin interface.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document