scholarly journals Shear bond strength evaluation of an alkasite restorative material to three different liners with and without using adhesive system: An in vitro study

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 278
Author(s):  
Aarti Mulgaonkar ◽  
Idade Noronha de Ataide ◽  
Marina Fernandes ◽  
Rajan Lambor
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Vitro Study ◽  
Restorative Material ◽  
Strength Evaluation

scholarly journals Assessment of shear bond strength of brackets bonded by direct and indirect techniques: an in vitro study

2012 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberto Hideo Shimizu ◽  
Karlos Giovani Grando ◽  
Isabela Almeida Shimizu ◽  
Augusto Ricardo Andriguetto ◽  
Ana Cláudia Moreira Melo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Vitro Study ◽  
Group Iii ◽  
Indirect Bonding ◽  
Group I ◽  
Group Ii

OBJECTIVE: This in vitro study was designed to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic metal brackets bonded by direct and indirect techniques. METHODS: Thirty healthy human maxillary premolar teeth were used. The teeth were divided into three groups of 10 teeth each: Group I - indirect bonding with SondhiTM Rapid-Set system (3M/Unitek), Group II - indirect bonding with TransbondTM XT adhesive system (3M/Unitek) and Group III - direct bonding with TransbondTM XT adhesive system (3M/Unitek). After bonding and obtaining the specimens for the study, the specimens were subjected to SBS testing in a universal testing machine (Emic, model DL-500). The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was applied to ascertain that the data had a normal distribution and the Bartlett test to check whether there was homogeneity of variance. One-factor analysis of variance was performed and, subsequently, Tukey's test for paired means. A 5% significance level was adopted. RESULTS: The results of Group I were 67.6 (N) and 5.9 (MPa); Group II, 68.9 (N) and 6.1 (MPa) and Group III (control), 92.5 (N) and 8.1 (MPa). CONCLUSION: It can therefore be concluded that the means for Group III were significantly higher compared with Groups I and II in both Newton (N) and Megapascal (MPa) values. The means attained by the indirect bonding technique used in Groups I and II, however, exhibited no statistically significant differences.

scholarly journals Shear Bond Strength of Three Composite Resins to Fluorosed and Sound Dentine: In Vitro Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Sabra Jaâfoura ◽  
Amira Kikly ◽  
Saida Sahtout ◽  
Mounir Trabelsi ◽  
Dorra Kammoun
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Vitro Study ◽  
Adhesion Forces ◽  
Average Shear ◽  
One Way Anova

Introduction. This in vitro study compared the shear strength of three composite resin systems to fluorosed and normal dentin. Methods. Silorane FiltekTM P90, FiltekTMZ250 XT in combination with the adhesive system AdperTM Single bond 2, and Amelogen® Plus in association with Peak Universal Bond® were tested. Fifteen normal and 15 fluorosed dentine disks were prepared per material. The shear bond strength test was performed using a universal machine. Results. One-way ANOVA revealed significant differences in bond strength between the tested composite resins. All tested materials had significantly different adhesion at the fluorosed and the nonfluorosed interface. FiltekTM Z250 XT and Silorane had lower adhesion values to fluorosed than to normal dentin. In contrast, Amelogen® Plus presented a better average resistance at the fluorosed interface. Conclusion. Amelogen® Plus presented a better average shear bond strength on the fluorosed dentine. FiltekTMZ250 XT showed the best adhesion forces and shear bond strength with sound dentine. Further studies are needed to better understand the sealing of these systems.

scholarly journals Indirect versus Direct Bonding—A Shear Bond Strength Comparison: An in vitro Study

2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 232-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vinaya S Pai ◽  
S Nandini ◽  
M Swetha ◽  
N Sanjay
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Vitro Study ◽  
Tooth Surface ◽  
Indirect Bonding ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Bonding Technique

ABSTRACT Aim The process of bonding orthodontic appliances to the enamel surface of the teeth has come to the forefront as a major improvement in bonding techniques. The purpose of this study is to compare the shear bond strength of stainless steel orthodontic brackets bonded using conventional direct bonding and indirect bonding as described by Thomas. Materials and methods Forty sound human premolars were divided into two groups of 20 each. Group I samples were bonded directly on the tooth surface using concise two paste adhesive system after etching and drying. Group II samples were bonded indirectly on the tooth surface according to Thomas indirect bonding technique using concise two paste adhesive system. The stored specimen was tested for shear bond strength in an Instron universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/minute. Data obtained were subjected to statistical analysis. Results The results showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the shear bond strength between direct and indirect bonding techniques. Chi-square test showed that there were significant differences among the adhesive remnant index scores between direct and indirect bonding groups. Conclusion In vitro shear bond strength comparison between direct and indirect-bonded attachments showed no significant difference between the two groups. Bond strength obtained with Thomas indirect bonding technique was comparable with direct bonding technique. Clinical significance Thomas indirect bonding technique can be used for bonding of the posterior teeth, where the risk of moisture contamination is high during bonding. How to cite this article Swetha M, Pai VS, Sanjay N, Nandini S. Indirect versus Direct Bonding—A Shear Bond Strength Comparison: An in vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2011; 12(4):232-238.

scholarly journals Effect of Saliva Contamination on Shear Bond Strength of Self-etch Adhesive System to Dentin: An In Vitro Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 443-446
Author(s):  
Ashwini B Prasad ◽  
Deepak Raisingani ◽  
Renuka P Chinchalkar ◽  
Pooja Sen ◽  
Rahul R Chaudhari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Vitro Study ◽  
Saliva Contamination ◽  
Self Etch

Chemomechanical Caries Removal in Primary Molars : Evaluation of Marginal Leakage and Shear Bond Strength in Bonded Restorations” - An in Vitro Study

2013 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 269-274 ◽  
Author(s):  
PM Viral ◽  
C Nagarathna ◽  
B S Shakuntala
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Vitro Study ◽  
Primary Molars ◽  
Strength Evaluation ◽  
Group I ◽  
Caries Removal ◽  
The Mean

Objectives : To evaluate and compare the efficiency, marginal leakage and shear bond strength of Carisolv and Papacarie in primary molars. Method: Freshly extracted 60 human carious primary molars were randomly divided into two experimental groups - Group I [ caries removal by Carisolv ] and Group II [ caries removal by Papacarie ]. The amount of time taken for complete caries removal was recorded using a stopwatch. After bonded restorations, both the experimental groups were further randomly subdivided into four experimental groups and subjected to marginal leakage and shear bond strength evaluation. Results : Papacarie [ 337.67 ± 18.13 ] was clinically more efficient than Carisolv [461.33 ± 27.76 ] in removing caries with respect to time in seconds. 66.7% of teeth treated with Carisolv did not show any marginal leakage as compared to 20% with Papacarie. The mean [ ± SD ] shear bond strength of Carisolv [ 9.67 ± 3.80 ] treated teeth was slightly more when compared to Papacarie [ 8.36 ± 4.51]. Conclusion :Papacarie was clinically more efficient in caries removal but showed significantly more marginal leakage than Carisolv.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document