Comparative evaluation of micro-tensile bond strength of one-step self-etching adhesive systems

M. Cebe, Mehmet Adıguzel, F. Cebe, M. Tekin
{"title":"Comparative evaluation of micro-tensile bond strength of one-step self-etching adhesive systems","authors":"M. Cebe, Mehmet Adıguzel, F. Cebe, M. Tekin","doi":"10.4103/2321-4619.143596","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess micro-tensile bond strength values to dentin of four different one-step self-etching adhesive systems in vitro in a comparative manner. Materials and Methods: In the present study, 20 caries-free human molar teeth were used. Occlusal surfaces were removed to achieve a uniform dentin surface under water cooling by using a low-speed diamond saw. The dentin surfaces obtained were abraded for one minute by using 600-grit silicon carbide papers. Then, the teeth were randomly assigned into four groups (n = 5). For restoration of teeth prepared, four different one-step self-etching adhesive systems, including Clearfil S 3 Bond Plus, Clearfil S 3 Bond, Xeno V Bond and Adper Easy Bond were used according to manufacturer′s instructions. A 4 mm thick of composite resin crown (ClearfilAP-X) was applied to surfaces pre-treated with bonding agent. Samples were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours until micro-tensile bond strength tests were performed. Statistical analyses were performed by using one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey tests (α =0.05). Fracture surfaces were evaluated using a stereomicroscope. Results: Significant differences were observed in bond strength to dentin among one-step self-etching adhesive systems (P < 0.05). The highest bond strength was achieved by Clearfil S 3 Bond Plus system (P < 0.05). No significant difference was observed in bond strength among other groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion: There were differences between bond strength values of tested one-step self-etch adhesives. Clearfil S 3 Bond Plus exhibited higher values.","PeriodicalId":17076,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Restorative Dentistry","volume":"5 1","pages":"130 - 135"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-09-01","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/10.4103/2321-4619.143596","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

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess micro-tensile bond strength values to dentin of four different one-step self-etching adhesive systems in vitro in a comparative manner. Materials and Methods: In the present study, 20 caries-free human molar teeth were used. Occlusal surfaces were removed to achieve a uniform dentin surface under water cooling by using a low-speed diamond saw. The dentin surfaces obtained were abraded for one minute by using 600-grit silicon carbide papers. Then, the teeth were randomly assigned into four groups (n = 5). For restoration of teeth prepared, four different one-step self-etching adhesive systems, including Clearfil S 3 Bond Plus, Clearfil S 3 Bond, Xeno V Bond and Adper Easy Bond were used according to manufacturer′s instructions. A 4 mm thick of composite resin crown (ClearfilAP-X) was applied to surfaces pre-treated with bonding agent. Samples were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours until micro-tensile bond strength tests were performed. Statistical analyses were performed by using one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey tests (α =0.05). Fracture surfaces were evaluated using a stereomicroscope. Results: Significant differences were observed in bond strength to dentin among one-step self-etching adhesive systems (P < 0.05). The highest bond strength was achieved by Clearfil S 3 Bond Plus system (P < 0.05). No significant difference was observed in bond strength among other groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion: There were differences between bond strength values of tested one-step self-etch adhesives. Clearfil S 3 Bond Plus exhibited higher values.
一步自蚀刻胶粘剂体系微拉伸粘结强度的比较评价
目的:比较四种不同的一步自蚀刻胶粘剂体系在体外与牙本质的微拉伸结合强度。材料与方法:本研究选用20颗无龋人磨牙。使用低速金刚石锯去除牙本质表面,使其在水冷却下达到均匀的牙本质表面。得到的牙本质表面用600粒碳化硅纸研磨1分钟。然后,将牙齿随机分为四组(n = 5)。为了修复准备好的牙齿,根据制造商的说明使用四种不同的一步自蚀刻粘合剂系统,包括Clearfil 3s Bond Plus, Clearfil 3s Bond, Xeno V Bond和Adper Easy Bond。将4mm厚的复合树脂冠(ClearfilAP-X)应用于用粘结剂预处理过的表面。样品在37℃蒸馏水中保存24小时,直至进行微拉伸粘结强度试验。统计学分析采用单因素方差分析和事后Tukey检验(α =0.05)。使用体视显微镜评估断口表面。结果:两种自蚀粘结剂对牙本质的粘结强度差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。clearfils3 bond Plus系统的结合强度最高(P < 0.05)。各组间结合力差异无统计学意义(P < 0.05)。结论:所测一步自蚀刻胶粘剂粘结强度值存在差异。clearfils3 Bond Plus表现出较高的数值。
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