Premium
In Vitro Tensile Bond Strengths of Amalgam to Treated Dentin
Author(s) -
DeSchepper Edward J.,
Cailleteau J. G.,
Roeder Leslie,
Powers John M.
Publication year - 1991
Publication title -
journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.919
H-Index - 60
eISSN - 1708-8240
pISSN - 1496-4155
DOI - 10.1111/j.1708-8240.1991.tb00981.x
Subject(s) - dentin , bond strength , amalgam (chemistry) , materials science , phosphoric acid , dentistry , ultimate tensile strength , adhesive , molar , composite material , chemistry , metallurgy , medicine , electrode , layer (electronics)
Since amalgam traditionally relies on undercuts in the tooth preparation for retention, extensive tooth structure must be removed for amalgam core build‐ups. In contrast, the ideal build‐up material would achieve its retention by directly bonding to tooth structure. This study compared tensile bond strengths of amalgam to dentin using All‐Bond Liner‐FX with three different dentin pretreatment conditions and Amalgambond according to the manufacturer's directions. One hundred and twenty dentin samples were tested. Groups 1‐3 used All‐Bond Liner‐FX as a bonding agent. Group 1 received a 15‐second application of 10 percent phosphoric acid on the dentin; Group 2 received the recommended dentin conditioner; and Group 3 received no dentin pretreatment. Group 4 used Amalgambond as the bonding agent after a 10‐second application of 10 percent citric acid/3 percent ferric chloride. Analysis of the data was conducted using both ANOVA and the Welbull statistic. Results of the analysis of variance Indicate that there were no statistical differences among mean tensile bond strengths for the three dentin pretreatment conditions using All‐Bond. All (30) of the Amalgambond specimens debonded prior to testing. The All‐Bond fracture data was well described by the Welbull function as evidenced by the high coefficient of determination (R 2 = 0.98 −0.99). Fracture analysis indicated that all of the Amalgambond failures were adhesive at the Amalgambond‐amalgam interface. All‐Bond fractures were mixed cohesive/adhesive failures indicating similar bonding to amalgam and dentin.