Premium
Influence of dentinal regions on bond strengths of different adhesive systems
Author(s) -
Özer F.,
Ünlü N.,
Sengun A.
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
journal of oral rehabilitation
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.991
H-Index - 93
eISSN - 1365-2842
pISSN - 0305-182X
DOI - 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.01064.x
Subject(s) - molar , enamel paint , adhesive , bond strength , materials science , universal testing machine , dentistry , glass ionomer cement , composite number , buccal administration , dental bonding , single bond , composite material , group (periodic table) , chemistry , ultimate tensile strength , medicine , organic chemistry , layer (electronics)
summary This in vitro study assessed comparatively the shear bond strengths of three composite resins, 3M Valux Plus (3MVP), Herculite (H), Clearfil AP‐X (CAP‐X), a polyacid modified composite resin Dyract (D), and a resin modified glass–ionomer materials Vitremer (V), to cervical and buccal dentine regions of extracted human molar teeth. Four different bonding systems, 3M ScotchBond Multipurpose (SB), Clearfil Liner Bond 2 (LB2), Opti Bond (OB), and Prime & Bond 2·1 (PB 2·1) were used with the manufacturer's respective composite and compomer materials. One hundred freshly extracted mandibular molar teeth were selected for this study. Flat buccal dentine surfaces were created on 50 teeth and cylindrical rods of the five materials were bonded to the dentine surfaces. For assessment of cervical bond strengths, the materials were bonded to mesial and distal enamel bordered occlusal dentinal surfaces of the remaining 50 teeth. The five groups of restorative procedures were applied as follows; Group 1: SB + 3MVP, Group 2: LB2 + CAP‐X, Group 3: OB + H, Group 4: PB2·1 + D, Group 5: Vitremer primer (VP) VP + V. Each restorative procedure thus had 20 specimens (10 buccal + 10 cervical). After 24 h of water storage (37 °C), the specimens were tested on a Universal Testing machine in shear with a cross head speed of 0·5 mm min −1 . The bond strength values were calculated in MPa and the results were evaluated statistically using Kruskal–Wallis one‐way/ anova and Mann–Whitney U ‐tests. It was found that the bond strengths of SB + 3MVP, LB2 + CAP‐X and VP + V to buccal dentine surfaces were significantly stronger ( P < 0·05) than those to the occluso‐cervical dentine floors. When the bond strengths to the occluso‐cervical dentine and buccal dentine surface were compared, there was no significant difference between the materials ( P > 0·05). Vitremer was found the least successful adhesive material in terms of shear bond strength on both buccal and occluso‐cervical dentine surfaces.