A comparison of the bond strength of different adhesive systems to dentin contaminated with chloroform

Neslihan Simsek, M. Yalçın, F. Ahmetoğlu, A. Keleş, A. Dundar, B. Dayı
{"title":"A comparison of the bond strength of different adhesive systems to dentin contaminated with chloroform","authors":"Neslihan Simsek, M. Yalçın, F. Ahmetoğlu, A. Keleş, A. Dundar, B. Dayı","doi":"10.4103/2321-4619.129024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strengths of five different bonding agents to dentin contaminated with chloroform which cleaning the remnants of the root canal sealer in coronal access cavities of teeth. Materials and Methods: A total of 30 extracted human mandibular molar teeth were used for study. Teeth were sectioned with diamond bur to expose the superficial dentin. AH Plus as a root canal sealer was placed to exposed dentin surface. Teeth were stored at least for 5 min motionless for sealer set. More of sealer on the surface of teeth was taken with the help of cotton pellets. Dentin surface was treated with 0.1 mL of chloroform which was kept for 1 min. After that, surfaces of teeth were flushed with distilled water and dried. Teeth were separated randomly into five groups and Clearfil SE Bond, Futura Bond M, Adper Easy Bond, Clearfil S3 Bond, and Optibond FL bonding agents were applied according to manufacturer′s instructions. The specimens were sectioned parallel blocks approximately 1 mm thickness and 1 mm width. The specimens pasted apparatus and subjected to microtensile testing device with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Connection surface of all samples was measured after the end of the test process. The connection types of surfaces were examined under a light microscope magnification Χ10. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the Optibond FL and Adper Easy Bond. However, Adper Easy Bond gave higher binding than the other tested materials. There was no statistically difference among Optibond FL, Clearfil S3 Bond, and Clearfil SE Bond. Conclusions: Many endodontically treated teeth are lost due to poor restorative treatment of teeth. Endodontic treatment procedures will affect bonding agents, so it could result in failure of the restoration.","PeriodicalId":17076,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Restorative Dentistry","volume":"13 1","pages":"41 - 45"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Restorative Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/2321-4619.129024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strengths of five different bonding agents to dentin contaminated with chloroform which cleaning the remnants of the root canal sealer in coronal access cavities of teeth. Materials and Methods: A total of 30 extracted human mandibular molar teeth were used for study. Teeth were sectioned with diamond bur to expose the superficial dentin. AH Plus as a root canal sealer was placed to exposed dentin surface. Teeth were stored at least for 5 min motionless for sealer set. More of sealer on the surface of teeth was taken with the help of cotton pellets. Dentin surface was treated with 0.1 mL of chloroform which was kept for 1 min. After that, surfaces of teeth were flushed with distilled water and dried. Teeth were separated randomly into five groups and Clearfil SE Bond, Futura Bond M, Adper Easy Bond, Clearfil S3 Bond, and Optibond FL bonding agents were applied according to manufacturer′s instructions. The specimens were sectioned parallel blocks approximately 1 mm thickness and 1 mm width. The specimens pasted apparatus and subjected to microtensile testing device with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Connection surface of all samples was measured after the end of the test process. The connection types of surfaces were examined under a light microscope magnification Χ10. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the Optibond FL and Adper Easy Bond. However, Adper Easy Bond gave higher binding than the other tested materials. There was no statistically difference among Optibond FL, Clearfil S3 Bond, and Clearfil SE Bond. Conclusions: Many endodontically treated teeth are lost due to poor restorative treatment of teeth. Endodontic treatment procedures will affect bonding agents, so it could result in failure of the restoration.
氯仿污染牙本质的不同粘接体系粘接强度比较
目的:研究氯仿污染牙本质后5种不同粘结剂对牙本质的微拉伸粘结强度。材料与方法:采用30颗拔除的人下颌磨牙进行研究。用金刚石刀切开牙齿,露出浅牙本质。AH Plus作为根管封闭剂放置在暴露的牙本质表面。牙齿放置至少5分钟不动,以备封口机设置。更多的牙齿表面的封口剂是在棉球的帮助下进行的。用0.1 mL氯仿处理牙本质表面,保存1分钟后,用蒸馏水冲洗牙齿表面并干燥。将牙齿随机分为5组,根据制造商说明使用Clearfil SE Bond、Futura Bond M、Adper Easy Bond、Clearfil S3 Bond和Optibond FL粘结剂。样品被切成约1mm厚、1mm宽的平行块。试件粘贴装置,并以1 mm/min的十字速度进行微拉伸试验。测试过程结束后,测量所有样品的连接面。在光学显微镜放大下检查表面的连接类型Χ10。结果:Optibond FL与Adper Easy Bond之间无统计学差异。然而,与其他测试材料相比,Adper Easy Bond具有更高的结合力。Optibond FL、clearfils3 Bond、clearfilse Bond三者间差异无统计学意义。结论:许多根管治疗后的牙齿由于修复治疗不佳而脱落。根管治疗过程会影响粘结剂,导致修复失败。
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
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信