To evaluate and compare the microtensile bond strength of dentine with the use of two-step and one-step adhesives: An ex vivo study

IF 0.4 Q4 BIOLOGY
Niharika Patel, Aruna Kanaparthy, Rosaiah Kanaparthy
{"title":"To evaluate and compare the microtensile bond strength of dentine with the use of two-step and one-step adhesives: An ex vivo study","authors":"Niharika Patel, Aruna Kanaparthy, Rosaiah Kanaparthy","doi":"10.4103/aihb.aihb_10_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: In the evolving world of adhesive dentistry, there has always been controversy regarding the adhesive system to be used for superior clinical performance, and clinicians often find themselves in a dilemma with so many products on the market. It, therefore, becomes necessary to know the various properties of different adhesive systems and their comparative analysis. Materials and Methods: Thirty, intact, non-carious and unrestored human mandibular premolars, which were extracted for orthodontic purposes were taken for the study. Teeth were divided into two groups A and B having 15 teeth in each group. The inclusion criteria were that the teeth should be non-carious, unrestored and should have been extracted for orthodontic purposes. Excluded teeth were those with caries, restorations, attrition, cracks and developmental defects. The teeth were embedded in resin, occlusal enamel was removed and the teeth were restored with composite resin using two different approaches for bonding. Teeth of Group A were bonded using single bond and teeth of Group B were bonded using Clearfil S3 Bond and were then sectioned to produce beams with an approximate cross-sectional area of 4 mm × 4 mm. These sections were mounted to a custom acrylic jig and subjected to microtensile bond strength testing using a universal testing machine with a cross head speed of 1 mm/min and stressed to de-bonding of the composite resin from the tooth. Results: Data were subjected to statistical analysis and evaluated using the analysis of variance test and Tukey's test which showed that single bond or two-step adhesive showed higher microtensile bond strength to dentine. Conclusion: The two-step single bond performed better than the one-step Clearfil S3, but the result was statistically non-significant.","PeriodicalId":7341,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Human Biology","volume":"13 1","pages":"53 - 56"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Human Biology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/aihb.aihb_10_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: In the evolving world of adhesive dentistry, there has always been controversy regarding the adhesive system to be used for superior clinical performance, and clinicians often find themselves in a dilemma with so many products on the market. It, therefore, becomes necessary to know the various properties of different adhesive systems and their comparative analysis. Materials and Methods: Thirty, intact, non-carious and unrestored human mandibular premolars, which were extracted for orthodontic purposes were taken for the study. Teeth were divided into two groups A and B having 15 teeth in each group. The inclusion criteria were that the teeth should be non-carious, unrestored and should have been extracted for orthodontic purposes. Excluded teeth were those with caries, restorations, attrition, cracks and developmental defects. The teeth were embedded in resin, occlusal enamel was removed and the teeth were restored with composite resin using two different approaches for bonding. Teeth of Group A were bonded using single bond and teeth of Group B were bonded using Clearfil S3 Bond and were then sectioned to produce beams with an approximate cross-sectional area of 4 mm × 4 mm. These sections were mounted to a custom acrylic jig and subjected to microtensile bond strength testing using a universal testing machine with a cross head speed of 1 mm/min and stressed to de-bonding of the composite resin from the tooth. Results: Data were subjected to statistical analysis and evaluated using the analysis of variance test and Tukey's test which showed that single bond or two-step adhesive showed higher microtensile bond strength to dentine. Conclusion: The two-step single bond performed better than the one-step Clearfil S3, but the result was statistically non-significant.
评估和比较两步和一步粘接剂对牙本质微拉伸结合强度的影响:一项离体研究
导言:在不断发展的粘接牙科世界中,一直存在着关于粘接剂系统用于卓越临床性能的争议,临床医生经常发现自己在市场上有这么多产品的困境。因此,有必要了解不同胶粘剂体系的各种性能并对其进行比较分析。材料与方法:选取30颗完整、无龋、未修复的用于正畸的人下颌前磨牙进行研究。牙齿分为A组和B组,每组15颗牙齿。纳入标准为无龋齿、未修复、已拔牙用于正畸。排除有龋、修复、磨损、裂纹和发育缺陷的牙齿。用树脂包埋牙齿,去除牙釉质,用复合树脂修复牙齿,采用两种不同的方法进行粘接。A组牙采用单键粘接,B组牙采用Clearfil S3键粘接,然后将其切割成横截面积约为4mm × 4mm的梁。这些部分安装在定制的丙烯酸夹具上,并使用十字头速度为1毫米/分钟的万能试验机进行微拉伸粘结强度测试,并强调复合树脂与牙齿的分离。结果:对数据进行统计分析,并采用方差分析检验和Tukey’s检验进行评价,结果表明单步粘接剂或两步粘接剂对牙本质的微拉伸结合强度更高。结论:两步单键优于一步clearfils3,但差异无统计学意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
37
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信