Article Data

  • Views 700
  • Dowloads 153

Original Research

Open Access

Micro-Shear Bond Strength of Different Adhesives to Human Dental Enamel

  • Nagayassu MP1
  • Shintome LK1
  • Arana Chavez VE1,*,
  • Fava M1

1Division of Oral Biology, School of Dentistry, University of Sã o Paulo, SP, Brazil.

DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.35.3.rr23x767505n22t7 Vol.35,Issue 3,May 2011 pp.301-304

Published: 01 May 2011

*Corresponding Author(s): Arana Chavez VE E-mail: vearana@usp.br

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the micro-shear bond strength of 5 adhesive systems to enamel, one single-bottle acid-etch adhesive (O), two self-etching primers (P) and two all-in-one self-etching adhesives (S). Method: Sixty premolar enamel surfaces (buccal or lingual) were ground flat with 400- and 600-grit SiC papers and randomly divided into 5 groups (n=12), according to the adhesive system: SB2 - Single Bond 2 (O); CSE - Clearfil SE Bond (P); ADS - AdheSE (P); PLP - Adper Prompt L-Pop (S); XE3 - Xeno III (S). Tygon tubing (inner diameter of 0.8mm) restricted the bonding area to obtain the resin composite (Z250) cylinders. After storage in distilled water at 37º C for 24h and thermocycling, micro-shear testing was performed (crosshead speed of 0.5mm/min). Data were submitted to one-way ANOVA and Tukey test (a=5%). Samples were also subjected to stereomicroscopic and SEM evaluations after micro-shear testing. Mean bond strength values (MPa±SD) and the results of Tukey test were: SB2: 36.36(±3.34)a; ADS: 33.03(±7.83)a; XE3: 32.76(±5.61)a; CSE: 30.61(±6.68)a; PLP: 22.17(±6.05)b. Groups with the same letter were not statistically different. It can be concluded that no significant difference was there between SB2, ADS, XE3 and CSE, in spite of different etching patterns of these adhesives. Only PLP presented statistically lower bond strengths compared with others.

Cite and Share

Nagayassu MP,Shintome LK,Arana Chavez VE,Fava M. Micro-Shear Bond Strength of Different Adhesives to Human Dental Enamel. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2011. 35(3);301-304.

References

1. Brackett WW, Ito S, Nishitani Y, Haisch LD, Pashley DH. The microtensile bond strength of self-etching adhesives to ground enamel. Oper Dent, 31: 332–7, 2006.

2. Giannini M, Soares CJ, Carvalho RM. Ultimate tensile strength of tooth structures. Dent Mater, 20: 322–9, 2004.

3. Hara AT, Amaral CM, Pimenta LAF, Sinhoreti MAC. Shear bond strength of hydrophilic adhesive systems to enamel. Am J Dent, 12: 181–4, 1999.

4. El-Araby AM, Talic YF. The effect of thermocycling on the adhesion of self-etching adhesives on dental enamel and dentin. J Contemp Dent Pract, 8: 17–24, 2007.

5. Erickson RL, De Gee AJ, Feilzer AJ. Fatigue testing of enamel bonds with self-etch and total-etch adhesive systems. Dent Mater, 22: 981–7, 2006.

6. Arana-Chavez VE, Massa LF. Odontoblasts: the cells forming and maintaining dentine. Int J Biochem Cell Biol, 36: 1367–73, 2004.

7. Hayakawa T, Kikutake K, Nemoto K. Influence of self-etching primer treatment on the adhesion of resin composite to polished dentin and enamel. Dent Mater, 14: 99–105, 1998.

8. Kaaden C, Powers JM, Friedl KH, Schmalz G. Bond strength of selfetching adhesives to dental hard tissues. Clin Oral Investig, 6: 155–60, 2002.

9. Braga RR, Meira JB, Boaro LC, Xavier TA. Adhesion to tooth structure: a critical review of “macro” test methods. Dent Mater, 26: 38–49, 2010.

10. Di Hipó lito V, de Goes MF, Carrilho MR, Chan DC, Daronch M, Sinhoreti MA. SEM evaluation of contemporary self-etching primers applied to ground and unground enamel. J Adhes Dent, 7: 203–11, 2005.

11. Perdigã o J, Gomes G, Duarte S Junior, Lopes MM. Enamel bond strengths of pairs of adhesives from the same manufacturer. Oper Dent, 30: 492–9, 2005.

12. Van Landuyt KL, Kanumilli P, De Munck J, Peumans M, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Bond strength of a mild self-etch adhesive with and without prior acid-etching. J Dent, 34: 77–85, 2006.

13. Moura SK, Pelizzaro A, Dal Bianco K, de Goes MF, Loguercio AD, Reis A et al. Does the acidity of self-etching primers affect bond strength and surface morphology of enamel? J Adhes Dent, 8: 75–83, 2006.

14. Pashley DH, Tay FR. Aggressiveness of contemporary self-etching adhesives. Part II: etching effects on unground enamel. Dent Mater, 17: 430–44,. 2001.

15. Perdigã o J, Lopes L, Lambrechts P, Leitã o J, Van Meerbeek B, Vanherle G. Effects of a self-etching primer on enamel shear bond strengths and SEM morphology. Am J Dent, 10: 141–6, 1997.

16. 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, 27: 403–9, 2002.

17. Weerasinghe DS, Nikaido T, Wettasinghe KA, Abayakoon JB, Tagami J. Micro-shear bond strength and morphological analysis of a self-etching primer adhesive system to fluorosed enamel. J Dent, 33: 419–26, 2005.

18. Abdalla AI, El Zohairy AA, Abdel Mohsen MM, Feilzer AJ. Bond efficacy and interface morphology of self-etching adhesives to ground enamel. J Adhes Dent, 12: 19–25, 2010.

19. Burrow MF, Kitasako Y, Thomas CD, Tagami J. Comparison of enamel and dentin microshear bond strengths of a two-step self-etching priming system with five all-in-one systems. Oper Dent, 33: 456–60, 2008.

20. Moura SK, Reis A, Pelizzaro A, Dal-Bianco K, Loguercio AD, AranaChavez VE, Grande RH. Bond strength and morphology of enamel using self-etching adhesive systems with different acidities. J Appl Oral Sci, 17: 315–25, 2009.

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.

Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.

JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Scopus: CiteScore 2.0 (2022) Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.

Submission Turnaround Time

Conferences

Top