Microshear bond strength of adhesives according to the direction of enamel rods

Young-Gon Cho; Jong-Jin Kim

doi:10.5395/JKACD.2005.30.4.344

Journal List > J Korean Acad Conserv Dent > v.30(4) > 1056170

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Cho and Kim: Microshear bond strength of adhesives according to the direction of enamel rods

Original Article

Journal of Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry

Journal of Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry 2005; 30(4): 344-351.

Published online: 30 July 2005

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2005.30.4.344

Microshear bond strength of adhesives according to the direction of enamel rods

Young-Gon Cho, Jong-Jin Kim

Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Chosun University, Korea.

Corresponding author: Young-Gon Cho. Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Chosun University, 421 Seosuk-dong, Dong-gu, Gwangju, Korea, 501-825. Tel: 82-62-220-3840, 3845, Fax: 82-62-232-9064, ygcho@mail.chosun.ac.kr

Received 31 December 2004 Revised 1 July 2005 Accepted 3 July 2005

(open-access):

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

This study compared the microshear bond strength (µSBS) to end and side of enamel rod bonded by four adhesives including two total etch adhesives and two self-etch adhesives.

Crown segments of extracted human molars were cut mesiodistally. The outer buccal or lingual surface was used as specimens cutting the ends of enamel rods, and inner slabs used as specimens cutting the sides of enamel rods.

They were assigned to four groups by used adhesives: Group 1 (All-Bond 2), Group 2 (Single Bond), Group 3 (Tyrian SPE/One-Step Plus), Group 4 (Adper Prompt L-Pop). After each adhesive was applied to enamel surface, three composite cylinders were adhered to it of each specimen using Tygon tube. After storage in distilled water for 24 hours, the bonded specimens were subjected to µSBS testing with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/minute. The results of this study were as follows;

1. The µSBS of Group 2 (16.50 ± 2.31 _MPa) and Group 4 (15.83 ± 2.33 _MPa) to the end of enamel prism was significantly higher than that of Group 1 (11.93 ± 2.25 _MPa) and Group 3 (11.97 ± 2.05 _MPa) (p < 0.05).

2. The µSBS of Group 2 (13.43 ± 2.93 _MPa) to the side of enamel prism was significantly higher than that of Group 1 (8.64 ± 1.53 _MPa), Group 3 (9.69 ± 1.80 _MPa), and Group 4 (10.56 ± 1.75 _MPa) (p < 0.05).

3. The mean µSBS to the end of enamel rod was significantly higher than that to the side of enamel rod in all group (p < 0.05).

Keywords: Microshear bond strength, Enamel rod, Total etch adhesives, Self-etch adhesives, Slabs

Figures and Tables

Figure 1

Specimens; end of enamel rod (left) and side of enamel rod (right).

Figure 2

Specimen adhered to the shear testing apparatus.

Table 1

Gloup classification by adhesives and composites

Table 2

Mean microshear bond strength to end of enamel rod (Unit: MPa, Mean ± S.D.)

Group 1: All-Bond 2, Group 2: Single Bond, Group 3: Tyrian SPE/One-Step Plus, Group 4: Adper Prompt L-Pop Superscripts of the other letter indicate values of statistically significant difference by Tukey test (p < 0.05).

Table 3

Mean microshear bond strength to side of enamel rod (Unit: MPa, Mean ± S.D.)

Group 1: All-Bond 2, Group 2: Single Bond, Group 3: Tyrian SPE/One-Step Plus, Group 4: Adper Prompt L-Pop

Superscripts of the other letter indicate values of statistically significant difference by Tukey test (p < 0.05).

Table 4

Statistical comparison between µSBS to end and side of enamel rods in each group by t-test

Group 1: All-Bond 2, Group 2: Single Bond, Group 3: Tyrian SPE/One-Step Plus, Group 4: Adper Prompt L-Pop, ^*: statistical signigicant difference

References

1. Inoue S, Vargas MA, Abe Y, Abe Y, Yoshida Y, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G, Sano H, Van Meerbeek B. Microtensile bond strength of eleven contemporary adhesives to enamel. Am J Dent. 2003. 16:329–334.

2. Cardoso PFC, Meloncini MA, Placido E, Lima JDO, Tavares AU. Influence of the substrate and load application method on the shear bond strength of two adhesive systems. Oper Dent. 2003. 28(4):388–394.

3. Dickens SH, Milos MF. Relationship of dentin shear bond strengths to different laboratory test designs. Am J Dent. 2002. 15:185–192.

4. Fanchi M, Breschi L. Effects of acid-etching solutions on human enamel and dentin. Quintessence Int. 1995. 26:431–435.

5. Gilpatrick RO, Ross JA, Simonsen RJ. Resin-to-enamel bond strengths with various etching times. Quintessence Int. 1991. 22:47–49.

6. Hannig M, Reinhardt KJ, Bott B. Self-etching primer vs phosphoric acid: an alternative concept for composite-to-enamel bonding. Oper Dent. 1999. 24:172–180.

7. Hara AT, Amaral CM, Pimenta LAF, Sinhoreti MAC. Shear bond strength of hydrophilic adhesive systems to enamel. Am J Dent. 1999. 12:181–184.

8. Ikeda T, Uno S, Tanaka T, Kawakami S, Komatsu H, Sano H. Relation of enamel prism orientation to microtensile bond strength. Am J Dent. 2002. 15:109–113.

9. Toledano M, Osorio R, de Leonardi G, Rosales-Leal JI, Ceballos L, Cabrerizo-Vilchez MA. Influence of self-etching primer on the resin adhesion to enamel and dentin. Am J Dent. 2001. 14:205–210.

10. Pashley DH, Tay FR. Aggressiveness of contemporary self-etching adhesives. part II : etching effects on unground enamel. Dent Mater. 2001. 17:430–444.

11. Fabianelli A, Kugel G, Ferrari M. Efficacy of self-etching primer on sealing margins of class II restorations. Am J Dent. 2003. 16:37–41.

12. Torii Y, Itou K, Nishitani Y, Ishikawa K, Suzuki K. Effect of phosphoric acid etching to self-etching primer application on adhesion of resin composite to enamel and dentin. Am J Dent. 2002. 15:305–308.

13. Miyazaki M, Hinoura K, Honjo G, Onose H. Effect of self-etching primer application method on enamel bond strength. Am J Dent. 2002. 15:412–416.

14. Kanemura N, Sano H, Tagami J. Tensile bond strength to and SEM evaluation of ground and intact enamel surfaces. J Dent. 1999. 27:523–530.

15. Perdigao J, Lopes L, Lambrechts P, Leitao J, Van Meerbeek B. Effects of a self-etching primer on enamel shear bond strengths and SEM morphology. Am J Dent. 1997. 10:141–146.

16. Shimada Y, Kikushima D, Tagami J. Micro-shear bond strength of resin-bonding systems to cervical enamel. Am J Dent. 2002. 15:373–377.

17. Shimada Y, Senawongse P, Harnirattisai C, Burrow MF, Nakaoki Y, Tagami J. Bond strength of two adhesive systems to primary and permanent enamel. Oper Dent. 2002. 27:403–409.

18. Munechika T, Suzuki K, Nishiyama M, Ohashi M, Horie K. A comparison of the tensile bond strengths of composite resins to longitudinal and transverse sections of enamel prisms in human teeth. J Dent Res. 1984. 63(8):1079–1082.

19. Carvalho RM, Santiago SL, Fernandes CA, Suh BI, Pashley DH. Effect of prism orientation on tensile strength of enamel. J Adhes Dent. 2000. 2(4):251–257.

20. Frankenberger R, Kramer N, Petschelt A. Long-term effect of dentin primers on enamel bond strength and marginal adaptation. Oper Dent. 2000. 25:11–19.

21. Sano H, Shono T, Sonoda H, Takatsu T, Ciucchi B, Carvalho RM, Pashley DH. Relationship between surface area for adhesion and tensile bond strength-evaluation of micro-tensile bond test. Dent Mater. 1994. 10:236–240.

22. Shimada Y, Tagami J. Effects of regional enamel and prism orientation on resin bonding. Oper Dent. 2003. 28:20–27.

23. Shimada Y, Iwamoto N, Kawashima M, Burrow MF, Tagami J. Shear bond strength of current adhesive systems to enamel, dentin and dentin-enamel junction region. Oper Dent. 2003. 28:585–590.

24. Yoshiyama M, Sano H, Ebisu S, Tagami J, Ciucchi B, Carvalho RM, Jonson MH, Pashley DH. Regional strengths of bonding agents to cervical sclerotic root dentin. J Dent Res. 1996. 75:1404–1413.

TOOLS

Similar articles