Shear bond strength comparison of two adhesive systems following thermocycling. A new self-etch primer and a resin-modified glass ionomer

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of a standardized thermocycling protocol on the shear bond strength (SBS) of two adhesive systems: a resin-modified glass ionomer and a composite resin used with a new self-etching primer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty human molars were cleaned, mounted, and randomly divided into two groups. In group 1, brackets were bonded to the teeth using Fuji Ortho LC adhesive, and in group 2, the Transbond Plus system was used. The teeth were stored in water at 37 degrees C for 24 hours, thermocycled between 5 and 55 degrees C, and debonded using a universal testing machine. The enamel surface was examined under 10x magnification to determine the amount of residual adhesive remaining on the tooth. Student's t-test was used to compare the SBS and the chi-square test was used to compare the adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores. RESULTS: The mean SBS for the brackets bonded using the Fuji Ortho LC was 6.4 +/- 4.5 MPa, and the mean SBS for the Transbond Plus system was 6.1 +/- 3.2 MPa. The result of the t-test comparisons (t = 0.207) indicated that there was no significant difference (P = .837) between the two groups. The comparisons of the ARI scores (chi(2) = 0.195) indicated that bracket failure mode was not significantly different (P = .907) between the two adhesives. CONCLUSION: Although SBS and ARI scores were not significantly different for the two adhesives, clinicians need to take into consideration the other properties of the adhesives before using them.     

Shear bond strength of a new high fluoride release glass ionomer adhesive

OBJECTIVE: To determine the shear bond strength of a new resin glass ionomer adhesive with higher fluoride release properties when bonding orthodontic brackets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty freshly extracted human molars were collected and stored in a solution of 0.1% (weight/volume) thymol. The teeth were cleaned and polished. The teeth were randomly separated into three groups according to the enamel conditioner/etchant and adhesive used. Group I: 20 teeth conditioned with 10% polyacrylic acid and brackets bonded with the new glass ionomer adhesive. Group II: 20 teeth conditioned with 37% phosphoric acid and brackets bonded with the new glass ionomer adhesive. Group III (control): 20 teeth etched with 37% phosphoric acid and brackets bonded with a composite adhesive. RESULTS: The results of the analysis of variance comparing the three experimental groups (F = 10.294) indicated the presence of significant differences between the three groups (P = .0001). The shear bond strengths were significantly lower in the two groups bonded with the new glass ionomer adhesive whether conditioned with polyacrylic acid ( x = 3.2 +/- 1.8 MPa) or phosphoric acid (x = 2.3 +/- 1.1 MPa), while the mean shear bond strength of the composite adhesive was 5.2 +/- 2.9 MPa. CONCLUSIONS: Although the increased fluoride release from the new glass ionomer has the potential of decreasing decalcification around orthodontic brackets, the shear bond strength of the material is relatively low.     

Shear bond strength of a composite resin to an etched glass ionomer

The shear bond strength of a composite resin bonded to an etched glass ionomer was examined. Results indicate that shear bond strength between the two materials is greater than the cohesive strength of the glass ionomer itself. This property combined with other beneficial properties of glass ionomer materials may lead to their use as bases for composite resin restorations.     

Shear bond strength of adhesive composite systems to human dentin

This study was carried out to evaluate the following adhesive systems under different conditions from the point of view of the bond strength that is obtained on dentin: Scotchbond Multipurpose, 3M: Denthesive II, Kulzer; Optibond, Kerr with techniques # 1 and 5; and A.R.T. Bond. Coltene. Composite resin (Z100, 3M) cylindrical specimens were bonded to flat dentin surfaces and the adhesive strength was determined under shear. No significant differences were found between the group in which products were used with a separate step of dentin demineralization and the group in which this step is not recommended or was omitted. It can be concluded that the use of dentin acid treatment as a separate step is not necessarily required for high composite bond strength even when it could represent a convenient clinical step to prepare enamel surfaces simultaneously.     

Shear bond strength and interface analysis between a resin composite and a recent high-viscous glass ionomer cement bonded with various adhesive systems

Objective

This study investigated the shear bond strength (SBS) and interface between a resin composite and a new high-viscous glass ionomer cement (HV-GIC), a HV-GIC, a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RM-GIC), a bulk-fill flowable composite, and a regular flowable composite bonded with various adhesive systems.

Methods and materials

A resin composite (Filtek Z350) was bonded to a new HV-GIC (EQUIA Forte Fil) using various adhesive systems, including a universal adhesive in self-etch and etch-and-rinse mode (Scotchbond Universal), a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (Scotchbond 1-XT), a one-step self-etch adhesive (Optibond All-in-one) tested also after silane application (Monobond Plus), and a coating material (EQUIA Forte Coat). The resin composite was also bonded to a HV-GIC (Fuji IX GP), a RM-GIC (Fuji II LC), a bulk-fill flowable composite (SDR), and a regular flowable composite (Tetric Evo Flow) with the universal adhesive in self-etch mode (Scotchbond Universal). Two-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s post hoc test was used to investigate the difference in SBS. Failures were analyzed by chi-square test. Bonding interfaces were examined by environmental scanning electron microscopy (E-SEM).

Results

SBS to EQUIA Forte Fil was significantly lower with Scotchbond 1-XT than with all other adhesive systems. By using Scotchbond Universal with the self-etch technique, the SBS to EQUIA Forte Fil was significantly higher than the SBS to Fuji IX GP and significantly lower than the SBS to Fuji II LC, SDR, and Tetric Evo Flow. E-SEM images showed an intimate contact at all interfaces examined.

Conclusion

EQUIA Forte Fil showed satisfactory SBS and interfaces with all adhesives tested.

Clinical relevance

Bonding between the resin composite and HV-GIC can be achieved using a universal adhesive in self-etch mode, an easy-to-use adhesive system.

     

Shear bond strength of light-cured glass ionomer to enamel and dentin

The shear bond strengths of a light-cured glass-ionomer cement to enamel and dentin were determined with use of extracted human maxillary permanent canines and molars. Bonding sites on the ground, etched enamel and ground dentin surfaces were demarcated by the punching of a hole, 3 mm in diameter, in an adhesive tape. The mixed glass-ionomer cement was transferred to the demarcated site, cured by exposure to visible light for 30 s, and the cement surface treated with Scotchprep Dentin Primer followed by Scotchbond 2 Light Cure Dental Adhesive. The embedded teeth were positioned in an assembly apparatus, and Silux composite was bonded to the glass-ionomer-cement surfaces. The specimens were disassembled after 15 min and subjected to a shear load (in an Instron machine) immediately after disassembly; after storage in water at 37 degrees C for 24 h, without and with temperature cycling; and after storage in water for four weeks, without and with temperature cycling. The shear bond strength of the glass-ionomer cement to etched enamel was in the order of 12 MN.m-2, and to dentin it was 9 MN.m-2. Temperature cycling and duration of storage had no adverse effect on the shear bond strength. The enamel and dentin aspects of fractured test specimens were examined, and the percentage of the bonding area that failed in the cement was estimated. Most of the test specimens failed partly at the enamel and dentin interfaces and within the glass-ionomer cement.     

Tensile bond strength between glass ionomer cements and composite resins

Etching or roughening the surface of glass ionomer cement before use of composite resins and bond agents produces bond strengths comparable to the bond strength between glass ionomers and dentin. Bond failure at such surfaces occurs within the glass ionomer. Adequate washing with water after acid etching the glass ionomer is essential to obtain optimal bond strength. Apparently, some combinations of ionomer cements and resins are more effective than are others in providing a good bond in the "sandwich technique".     

Shear bond strength of acetone-based one-bottle adhesive systems

The aim of this study was to assess the shear bond strength of four acetone-based one-bottle adhesive systems to enamel and dentin, and compare to that of an ethanol-based system used as control. Fifty human molars were bisected mesiodistally and the buccal and lingual surfaces were embedded in acrylic resin using PVC cylinders. The buccal surfaces were ground to obtain flat dentin surfaces, while the lingual surfaces were ground to obtain flat enamel surfaces. All specimens were polished up to 600-grit sandpapers and randomly assigned to 5 groups (n=20; 10 dentin specimens and 10 enamel specimens), according to the adhesive system used: One-Step (Bisco); Gluma One Bond (Heraeus Kulzer); Solobond M (Voco); TenureQuik w/F (Den-Mat) and OptiBond Solo Plus (Kerr) (control). Each adhesive system was applied according to the manufacturers' instructions. The respective proprietary hybrid composite was applied in a gelatin capsule (d=4.3 mm) and light-cured for 40 s. The specimens were tested in shear strength with an Instron machine at a crosshead speed of 5 mm/min. Bond strengths means were analyzed statistically by one-way ANOVA and Duncan's post-hoc (p< or =0.05). Shear bond strength means (MPa) (+/-SD) to enamel and dentin were: Enamel: One-Step=11.3(+/-4.9); Gluma One Bond=16.3(+/-10.1); Solobond M=18.9(+/-4.5); TenureQuik w/F=18.7(+/-4.5) and OptiBond Solo Plus=16.4(+/-3.9); Dentin: One-Step=6.4(+/-2.8); Gluma One Bond=3.0(+/-3.4); Solobond M=10.6(+/-4.9); TenureQuik w/F=7.8(+/-3.9) and OptiBond Solo Plus=15.1(+/-8.9). In enamel, the adhesive systems had statistically similar bond strengths to each other (p>0.05). However, the ethanol-based system (OptiBond Solo Plus) showed significantly higher bond strength to dentin than the acetone-based systems (p< or =0.0001). In conclusion, the solvent type (acetone or ethanol) had no influence on enamel bond strength, but had great influence on dentin bonding, which should be taken into account when choosing the adhesive system.     

用于正畸托槽粘接的玻璃离子粘固剂的抗剪切强度

目的　研究用于正畸托槽粘接的树脂改良型玻璃离子粘固剂的抗剪切强度。方法　 30颗离体前磨牙平均分为 2组。一组用树脂改良型玻璃离子粘固剂 (Advance)粘接方丝弓正畸托槽 ,另一组用复合树脂釉质粘接剂 (DM)粘接。 2 4h后用材料力学试验机检测两种材料的抗剪切强度 ,统计牙面上粘接材料的残留指数。结果　 2种粘接材料的抗剪切强度相似 [玻璃离子粘固剂为 (6 86 2±2 142 )MPa,复合树脂粘接剂为 (7 183± 3 2 0 5 )Mpa],差异无显著性。结论　体外研究中 ,树脂改良型玻璃离子粘固剂的抗剪切强度已达到复合树脂釉质粘接剂的水平 ,具有临床应用前景     

Dentine bond strength and microleakage of flowable composite,compomer and glass ionomer cement

Background: To assess in vitro the dentine bond strength and microleakage of three Class V restorations viz. flowable composite, compomer and glass ionomer cement. Methods: Eighteen dentine specimens were prepared and randomly distributed among three groups. Three kinds of restoration materials were each bonded on prepared dentine surfaces in three groups as per the manufacturers’ instructions. Group Aelite: Tyrian SPE (a no‐rinse, self‐priming etchant) + One Step Plus (an universal dental adhesive) + Aeliteflo (a flowable composite); Group Dyract: Prime & Bond NT (a no‐rinse, self‐priming dental adhesive) + Dyract AP (a compomer); Group GlasIonomer: GlasIonomer Type II (a self‐cured restorative glass ionomer). Fifteen dentine/restoration microtensile bond test specimens were prepared from each group and were subjected to microtensile bond strength testing. The bond interfaces were observed morphologically using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Twenty‐four cervical cavities of 4.0 mm mesiodistal length, 2.0 mm occlusogingival height and 1.5 mm depth were prepared at the cemento‐enamel junction (CEJ) on both buccal and lingual surfaces of each tooth. The cavities were each filled with flowable composite (Group Aelite), compomer (Group Dyract) and glass ionomer cement (Group GlasIonomer) using the same material and methods as for the microtensile bond tests. Microleakage of each restoration was evaluated by the ratio of the length of methylene blue penetration along the tooth‐restoration interface and the total length of the dentine cavity wall on the cut surface. Results: One‐way ANOVA and least significant difference (LSD) tests revealed statistically significant differences among the dentine bond strength for Group Aelite (28.4 MPa), Group Dyract (15.1 MPa) and Group GlasIonomer (2.5 MPa). SEM images showed intimate adaptation in the restoration/dentine interfaces of Group Aelite and Group Dyract. All of the systems tested in this study presented microleakage. However, both Group Aelite (0.808) and Group Dyract (0.863) had significantly less microleakage than Group GlasIonomer (0.964). There were no statistically significant microleakage differences between Group Aelite and Group Dyract, and no statistically significant microleakage differences between the occlusal margin and gingival margin. Conclusions: None of the systems tested in this study completely eliminated microleakage. However, both the flowable composite and compomer provided stronger dentine bond strengths and better margin sealing than the conventional glass ionomer cement. Occlusal forces exerted the same effects on microleakage of the occlusal margin and gingival margin in cervical cavities.     

Shear bond strength of chemical and light-cured glass ionomer cements bonded to resin composites

A bond between glass ionomer cements (GIC) and resin composites is desirable for the success of the ‘sandwich’ restoration. Chemically cured glass ionomer cements have been the traditional materials used in this technique since its development, but etching the GIC was necessary to obtain a bond to the composite facing. Producing a very smooth GIC surface has aided in better determining the magnitude of the chemical bond between glass ionomers and resin composites. Shear testing of bonded specimens has revealed that chemical bonding is minimal (0.21 MPa) in conventional glass ionomers, but does exist (4.92 MPa) between GIC and resin composite regardless of the filler content (microfilled vs hybrid) of the composite. Thermal stressing affects the bond to resin-modified glass ionomers, but has no significant effect on self-cured cements. Of all combinations tested, Vitremer/Scotchbond/Silux Plus showed the highest mean shear bond strength. Based on the clinical need for an adhesive bond between GIC liner/base and resin composite, the resin-modified glass ionomer would appear to be the material of choice.     

Comparison of shear bond strength of two self-etch primer/adhesive systems

Orthodontic brackets adhesive systems use three different agents, an enamel conditioner, a primer solution, and an adhesive resin. A unique characteristic of some new bonding systems is that they combine the conditioning, priming, and adhesive agents into a single application. The purpose of this study was to assess and compare the effects of using one-step and two-step self-etch primer/adhesive systems on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. The brackets were bonded to extracted human molars according to one of two protocols. Group I (control): a two-step self-etch acidic primer/adhesive system was used, Transbond Plus was applied to the enamel surface as suggested by the manufacturer. The brackets were bonded with Transbond XT and light cured for 20 seconds. Group II: a one-step self-etch, self-adhesive resin cement system, Maxcem, was applied directly to the bracket. The self-etch primer/adhesive is made of two components that mix automatically during application. The brackets were then light cured for 20 seconds. The mean shear bond strength of the two-step acid-etch primer/adhesive was 5.9 +/- 2.7 Mpa and the mean for the one-step system was 3.1 +/- 1.7 MPa. The in vitro findings of this study indicated that the shear bond strengths (t = 3.79) of the two adhesive systems were significantly different (P = .001). One-step adhesive systems could potentially be advantageous for orthodontic purposes if their bond strength can be improved.     

Shear bond strength of direct composite repairs in indirect composite systems

Indirect composite restorations may require repair during clinical service. This study evaluated the shear bond strength of direct composite repairs in indirect composites after four surface treatment procedures. Cylinders of three indirect composites (n = 10 per group) received the following surface treatment: sandpaper finishing (control group), 50 microm aluminum oxide sandblasting, 50 microm aluminum oxide sandblasting (plus 10% fluoridric acid etching), and 30 microm silaned silicon sandblasting. Repair procedure was simulated with the application of an adhesive agent and packing of a direct composite. After storage for one hour in relative humidity and 23 hours in distilled water at 37 degrees C, the specimens were tested for shear bond strength using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Groups treated with aluminum oxide sandblasting or CoJet Sand had the highest mean values of shear bond strength with no statistically significant difference between the two techniques.     

Shear bond strength of resin-modified glass ionomer cement with saliva present and different enamel pretreatments

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength of resin-modified glass ionomer cement in a saliva-contaminated environment, using different enamel pretreatments. A total of 125 freshly extracted, bovine permanent inferior incisors were divided into five groups. Group I received 10% polyacrylic acid, moistened with saliva/Fuji Ortho LC (FOLC); group II received 37% phosphoric acid, moistened with saliva/FOLC; group III was moistened with saliva/ FOLC, without acid etching; group IV received 10% polyacrylic acid, not moistened with saliva/ FOLC; and group V was used as a control with 37% phosphoric acid/dry/Transbond XT. After the bonding procedures, all samples were thermocycled, tested in a shear mode on a testing machine, and the Adhesive Remnant Index was evaluated. One-way analysis of variance and Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD) tests indicated that group V yielded the highest shear bond strength (4.09 MPa) but with no statistically significant difference from group II (3.88 MPa). There were no statistically significant differences between groups I, III, and IV (2.84, 2.90, and 3.22 MPa, respectively) (P > or = .05). In groups I, II, IV, and V, where enamel was etched, more than 50% of the samples showed that all material adhered to the teeth surfaces. This was opposed to group III, where the bond failure was mostly between the enamel interface and the bonding material. The results indicated that in a saliva-moistened environment, FOLC achieved higher shear bond strength when 37% phosphoric acid is used, with no statistically significant difference from Transbond XT.     

2种树脂黏固剂产品与人牙本质黏结性能的研究

目的探讨2种树脂黏固剂对进行和不进行处理的人牙本质是否具有相同的黏结效果。方法将30枚人牙本质试件分为6组,分别施以不同表面的处理（A、B组不处理 C、D组磷酸酸蚀15s E、F组磷酸酸蚀15s后使用One-step通用型黏结剂）。A、C、E组使用RelyX Unicem双固化树脂黏固剂,B、D、F组使用Bis-cem双固化树脂黏固剂,制作牙本质/树脂黏固剂黏结试件,测试剪切黏结强度,扫描电镜观察黏结界面形态。结果统计分析可知组A和组B的黏结强度值分别低于组C、E和组D、F,组C与组E间以及组D与组F间无统计学差别。RelyX Unicem树脂黏固剂除对于磷酸酸蚀牙本质的黏结强度高于Biscem树脂黏固剂外,牙本质进行其他表面处理或不处理时,2种树脂黏固剂间的黏结强度无明显差别。结论磷酸酸蚀能够提高RelyX Unicem和Biscem2种自黏结树脂黏固剂对牙本质的黏结强度。