PDF
ePub
Citation
Print
ABSTRACT
Objectives:
This study investigated the hypothesis that increasing light-curing time would leave the oxygen-inhibited layer (OIL) of the adhesive thinner, and in turn, result in lower shear bond strength (SBS) than those obtained by the routine curing procedures.
Methods:
120 human extracted posterior teeth were randomly divided into three groups for bonding with three adhesives: All Bond 2®, One Step®, and Adper Prompt®. They were subsequently divided into four subgourps with different light-curing time (10, 20, 30 and 60 s). The assigned adhesives were applied on superficial occlusal dentin according to the manufacturer’s instructions and cured with one of the four curing times. Composite resin cylinder, 2.35 mm in diameter, were built on the cured adhesive and light-cured for 40 s. SBS were measured after 24 h from the bonding using a universal testing machine (crosshead speed 1.0 mm/min). The relative thickness of the OIL and the degree of conversion (DC) were determined from the adhesive on a slide glass using FT-NIR in an absorbance mode. Data were analysed with One-way ANOVA and Duncan’s multiple test (p < 0.05).
Results:
With increasing cure time, although there were no significant difference in th SBS of One-step and Adper Prompt (p > 0.05), those of All Bond 2 decreased significantly (p < 0.05). The relative thicknesses of the OIL on each adhesive were not affected by the cure time (p > 0.05). Although the DC of All-Bond 2 were statistically not different with increasing cure time (p > 0.05), those of One-Step and Adper Prompt showed an increasing trends with increasing cure time (p < 0.05).
REFERENCES
1. Chappell FP, Cobb CM, Spencer P, Eick JD. Dentinal tubule anastomosis: a potential factor in adhesive bonding. J Prosthet Dent. 72(2):183–188. 1994.
2. Nakabayashi N, Kojima K, Masuhara E. The promotion of adhesion by the infiltration of monomers into tooth substrates. J Biomed Mater Res. 16:265–273. 1982.
3. Perdigao J, Lopes M, Geraldeli S, Lopes GC, Garcia-Godoy F. Effect of a sodium hypochlorite gel on dentin bonding. Dent Mater. 16:311–323. 2000.
4. Platt JA, Almeida J, Gonzalez-Cabezas C, Rhodes B, Moore BK. The effect of double adhesive application on the shear bond strength to dentin of compomers using three one-bottle adhesive systems. Oper Dent. 26:313–317. 2001.
5. Swift EJ, Wilder AD, May KN, Waddell SL. Shear bond strengths of one-bottle dentin adhesives using multiple applications. Oper Dent. 22:194–199. 1997.
6. Venz S, Dickens B. Modified surface-active monomers for adhesive bonding to dentin. J Dent Res. 72:582–586. 1993.
7. Zheng L, Pereira PN, Nakajima M, Sano H, Tagami J. Relationship between adhesive thickness and microten-sile bond strength. Oper Dent. 26(1):97–104. 2001.
8. Uno S, Finger WJ. Function of the hybrid zone as a stress-absorbing layer in resin dentin bonding. Quintessence Int. 26(10):733–738. 1995.
9. Yoshiyama M, Sano H, Ebisu S, Tagami J, Ciucchi B, Carvalho RM, Johnson MH, Pashley DH. Regional strengths of bonding agents to cervical sclerotic root dentin. J Dent Res. 75(6):1404–1413. 1996.
10. Lundin SA, Koch G. Cure profiles of visible light cured class II composite restoratives in vivo and in vitro. Dent Mater. 8:7–9. 1992.
11. Eliades GC, Vougiouklakis GJ, Caputo AA. Degree of double bond conversion in light-curd composites. Dent Mater. 3:19–25. 1987.
12. Ferracane JL, Greener EH. The effect of resin formulation on the degree of conversion and mechanical properties of dental restorativeresins. J Biomed Mater Res. 20:121–131. 1986.
13. Cho BH, Dickens SH. Effects of the acetone content of single solution dentin bonding agents on the adhesive layer thickness and the microtensile bond strength. Dent Mater in press. 2004.
14. Choi KK, Condon JR, Ferracane JL. The effects of adhesive thickness on polymerization contraction stress of composite. J Dent Res. 79:812–817. 2000.
15. Koike T, Hasegawa T, Itoh K, Yukitani W, Yamashita T, Wakumoto S, Hisamitsu H. Effect of multiple application of a dentin adhesive on contraction gap width of a resin-based composite. Am J Dent. 15(3):159–163. 2002.
16. Van Meerbeeek, Willems G, Celis JP, Roos JR, Braem M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Assessment by nano-indentation of the hardness and elasticity of the resin-dentin bonding area. J Dent Res. 72:1434–1442. 1993.
17. Tassery H, de Donato P, Barres O, Dejou J. In vitro assessment of polymerization procedures in Class II restorations: sealing, FTIR, and microhardness evaluations. J Adhes Dent. 3(3):247–255. 2001.
18. Ruyter IE. Unpolymerized surface layers on sealants. Acta Odontol Scand. 39(1):27–32. 1981.
19. Boyer DB, Chan KC, Torney DL. Build-up and repair of light-cured composites : bond strength. J Dent Res. 63:1241–1244. 1984.
20. Rueggeberg FA, Margeson DH. The effect of oxygen inhibition on an unfilled/filled composite system. J Dent Res. 69(10):1652–1658. 1990.
21. Vankerckhoven H, Lambrechts P, van Beylen M, Davidson CL, Vanherle G. Unreacted methacrylate groups on the surfaces of composite resins. J Dent Res. 61(6):791–795. 1982.
22. Lovell LG, Lu H, Elliott JE, Stansbury JW, Bowman CN. The effect of cure rate on the mechanical properties of dental resins. Dent Mater. 17:504–511. 2001.
23. Dickens SH, Milos MF. Relationship of dentin shear bond strengths to different laboratory test designs. Am J Dent. 15(3):185–192. 2002.
24. Finger WJ, Lee KS, Podszun W. Monomers with low oxygen inhibition as enamel/dentin adhesives. Dent Mater. 12(4):256–261. 1996.
25. Lovell LG, Newman SM, Bowman CN. The effects of light intensity, temperature, and comonomer compos-itetionon the polymerization behavior of dimethacrylate dental resins. J Dent Res. 78(8):1469–1476. 1999.
26. Stansbury JW, Dickens SH. Determination of double bond conversion in dental resins by near infrared spectroscopy. Dent Mater. 17(1):71–79. 2001.
27. Peutzfeldt A, Asmussen E. The effect of postcuring on quantity of remaining double bonds, mechanical properties, and in vitro wear of two resin composites. J Dent. 28(6):447–452. 2000.
28. Palin WM, Fleming GJ, Trevor Burke FJ, Marquis PM, Randall RC. Monomer conversion versus flexure strength of a novel dental composite. J Dent. 31(5):341–351. 2003.
Table 1.
Mean shear bond strength of three dentin adhesive systems with increasing cure time (Mean ± S.D., n = 10, unit: MPa).
Table 2.
The difference between the % absorbance of the second spectra obtained after curing and that of the third spectra obtained after removing overlying uncured layer with alcohol sponge (% Absorbance; Mean ± S.D., n = 8)
Table 3.
The degree of conversion of the three adhesives after curing with increasing cure time (Mean ± S.D., n = 8, Unit: %)
XML Download