Skip to content
6CCVD Research

Effect of six month storage on microtensile bond strength of new elective etching adhesive system on dentin in self-etching or etch-and-rinse approach

At a Glance

Section titled “At a Glance”
MetadataDetails
Publication Date2016-07-04
JournalThe Saudi Journal for Dental Research
AuthorsLeonardo Colombo Zeidan, André Figueiredo Reis, Alessandra Cassoni, José Augusto Rodrigues
InstitutionsGuarulhos University
Citations5

Abstract

Section titled “Abstract”

The aim of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength (ÎŒTBS) to dentin of an elective etching adhesive system applied in etch-and-rinse (ER) or self-etching (SE) mode after 6-months of storage in water. Thirty-six caries-free, human third molars were collected and stored in a 0.1% thymol solution. Dentin surfaces were exposed by 600-grit silicon carbide paper and teeth were divided into six groups (n = 6), according to the adhesive systems: a 2-step SE system, Clearfil SE Bond (CSE); a 1-step SE adhesive Adper Prompt L-Pop (LPOP); Scotchbond Universal applied as a 1-step SE adhesive (SBU-SE) and applied as a 2-step ER adhesive (SBU-ER); and two 2-step ER adhesives: Adper Single Bond Plus (SBP) and Optibond Solo Plus (OSP). Composite build-ups were constructed with TPH3 and cured in three increments of 2 mm each. Specimens were sectioned with a slow-speed diamond saw under water in X and Y directions to obtain bonded beams that were tested to failure in tension at a crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/min after one week or 6 months of storage in water. Statistical analyses were computed using Repeated-Measures ANOVA and Fisher’s LSD Tests (α = 0.05). There were no significant differences between 1-week and 6-months. SBU-ER and SBUSE showed the highest ÎŒTBS values and statistically differed from LPOP (Fisher’s LSD). The SBP, OSP, and CSE groups showed intermediary ÎŒTBS and did not differ statistically from SBU-ER, SBUSE or LPOP, which presented the lowest ÎŒTBS values. The use of elective etching adhesive system in dentin with the etch-and-rinse or self-etching approach did not compromise the bond strength and showed stable bonds after six months of storage in water.

Tech Support

Section titled “Tech Support”

Original Source

Section titled “Original Source”

References

Section titled “References”
  1. 2008 - Dental adhesion review: aging and stability of the bonded interface [Crossref]
  2. 1999 - Microleakage of Class V resin-based composite restorations using five simplified adhesive systems
  3. 2009 - Can previous acid etching increase the bond strength of a self-etching primer adhesive to enamel? [Crossref]
  4. 2005 - A challenge to the conventional wisdom that simultaneous etching and resin infiltration always occurs in self-etch adhesives [Crossref]
  5. 2012 - Interaction morphology and bond strength of nanofilled simplified-step adhesives to acid etched dentin [Crossref]
  6. 2012 - Bonding effectiveness of a new ’multi-mode’ adhesive to enamel and dentine [Crossref]
  7. 1999 - Shear bond strength of hydrophilic adhesive systems to enamel
  8. 1999 - Tensile bond strength to and SEM evaluation of ground and intact enamel surfaces [Crossref]
  9. 2004 - Bonding to enamel and dentin using self-etching adhesive systems
  10. 2006 - New concept of resin-dentin interfacial adhesion: the nanointeraction zone [Crossref]

Reads Similar to This

Comparative Evaluation of Push-Out Bond Strength of Bulk-Fill versusDual-Cure Resin Composites in Root Canals Voltammetric and Capacitance Behavior of Optically Transparent Diamond Electrodes in Room-Temperature Ionic Liquids Atlas of Human Skeleton Hardness Obtained Using the Micro‐indentation Technique