Premium
Microtensile bond strengths to enamel of self‐etching and one bottle adhesive systems
Author(s) -
PILECKI P.,
STONE D. G.,
SHERRIFF M.,
WATSON T. F.
Publication year - 2005
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 - 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2005.01460.x
Subject(s) - enamel paint , bond strength , adhesive , materials science , composite material , composite number , molar , scanning electron microscope , confocal , confocal laser scanning microscopy , dentistry , layer (electronics) , biomedical engineering , mathematics , medicine , geometry
summary This study compared the enamel bond strengths of self‐etching and one bottle adhesives, and evaluated microscopically their debonding modes. Evaluated systems were: Self‐etch – Prompt L‐Pop (LP); one bottle, total etch – Single Bond (SB), Prime & Bond NT (PB); compomer – Hytac Aplitip (HA), F2000 (F2); resin composite – Reference 21 Aplitip (R2), Herculite XRV (XRV), Esthet.X (EX); in the following combinations: LP/HA; LP/R2; SB/F2; SB/XRV; PB/EX. Flat surfaces of enamel were ground on caries free extracted third molars. An adhesive resin was applied to this surface and a restorative material built on it. The teeth were sectioned longitudinally into 1 mm thick specimens and trimmed to a 1 mm 2 area at the enamel/adhesive interface. For each material combination, 10 specimens were tested. Microtensile bond strengths were determined at 0·5 mm min −1 . Fractured specimens were examined using confocal and scanning electron microscopy to determine failure modes. Bond strength data was analysed using Kaplan–Meier survival analysis, a log‐rank test and a Bonferroni multiple comparison. Failure mode data was analysed with a χ 2 test. The interface of additional fluorescent‐labelled specimens was examined by laser scanning confocal microscopy. The bond strength data showed significant differences: LP/R2 > LP/HA, SB/F2 and PB/EX; SB/F2 < LP/HA, SB/XRV and PB/EX. Both compomers principally exhibited cohesive failure. Resin composite materials showed more complex failure modes. Fluorescence images demonstrated interfacial characteristics consistent with the failure modes observed. Significance: bond strength was not influenced by the use of self‐etch or one bottle adhesives.