{"title":"Effects of C-Factor on Bond Strength of Universal Adhesives to Floor and Wall Dentin in Class-I Composite Restorations.","authors":"Nafiseh Fazelian, Shahin Kasraei, Zahra Khamverdi","doi":"10.3290/j.jad.b2701599","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the effects of C-factor on the bond strength of universal adhesives to floor and wall dentin in class-I composite restorations using a bulk-fill composite.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>108 non-carious humans third molars were randomly divided into four groups as follows: flat wall, flat floor, cavity wall, and cavity floor (n = 36). Then, each group was subdivided into three subgroups according to the type of adhesive used: Single Bond Universal, G-premio Bond (both universal adhesives), or Adper Single Bond 2 (an etch-and-rinse adhesive). After the bonding procedure, X-tra fill resin composite was applied in bulk to build up the flat surfaces or fill the cavities.Then the teeth were sectioned into 1-mm2 sticks and microtensile bond strength (µTBS) was measured using a universal testing machine. µTBS (MPa) was analyzed by one-way, two-way, and three-way ANOVA using SPSS Version 23 (a = 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Interactions between adhesives and bonding surfaces, as well as C-factor and bonding surfaces showed statistically significant differences, but the interaction between the C-factor and type of adhesive was not statistically significant. The comparison of bonded surfaces including the flat wall and the flat floor in Adper Single Bond 2 was statistically significant (p < 0.05), except for the cavity wall and cavity floor.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Regardless of the type of adhesives, the C-factor reduced the µTBS of the composite resin to dentin. Adper Single Bond 2 mediated higher µTBS than did the universal adhesives G-premio Bond and Single Bond Universal.</p>","PeriodicalId":94234,"journal":{"name":"The journal of adhesive dentistry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The journal of adhesive dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.b2701599","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the effects of C-factor on the bond strength of universal adhesives to floor and wall dentin in class-I composite restorations using a bulk-fill composite.
Materials and methods: 108 non-carious humans third molars were randomly divided into four groups as follows: flat wall, flat floor, cavity wall, and cavity floor (n = 36). Then, each group was subdivided into three subgroups according to the type of adhesive used: Single Bond Universal, G-premio Bond (both universal adhesives), or Adper Single Bond 2 (an etch-and-rinse adhesive). After the bonding procedure, X-tra fill resin composite was applied in bulk to build up the flat surfaces or fill the cavities.Then the teeth were sectioned into 1-mm2 sticks and microtensile bond strength (µTBS) was measured using a universal testing machine. µTBS (MPa) was analyzed by one-way, two-way, and three-way ANOVA using SPSS Version 23 (a = 0.05).
Results: Interactions between adhesives and bonding surfaces, as well as C-factor and bonding surfaces showed statistically significant differences, but the interaction between the C-factor and type of adhesive was not statistically significant. The comparison of bonded surfaces including the flat wall and the flat floor in Adper Single Bond 2 was statistically significant (p < 0.05), except for the cavity wall and cavity floor.
Conclusion: Regardless of the type of adhesives, the C-factor reduced the µTBS of the composite resin to dentin. Adper Single Bond 2 mediated higher µTBS than did the universal adhesives G-premio Bond and Single Bond Universal.
材料和方法:将 108 颗无龋人类第三磨牙随机分为以下四组:平壁组、平底组、洞壁组和洞底组(n = 36)。然后,根据所用粘合剂的类型,每组又分为三个亚组:Single Bond Universal、G-premio Bond(均为通用型粘合剂)或 Adper Single Bond 2(蚀刻-冲洗型粘合剂)。粘接程序完成后,大量涂抹 X-tra fill 树脂复合材料,以形成平整的表面或填充龋洞。然后将牙齿切成 1 平方毫米的小块,使用万能试验机测量微拉伸粘接强度(µTBS)。使用 SPSS Version 23(a = 0.05)对µTBS(兆帕)进行单因素、双因素和三因素方差分析:粘合剂与粘合表面之间的交互作用以及 C 因子与粘合表面之间的交互作用在统计学上有显著差异,但 C 因子与粘合剂类型之间的交互作用在统计学上无显著差异。除空腔墙和空腔地板外,Adper Single Bond 2 中包括平面墙和平面地板在内的粘合表面的比较具有统计学意义(p < 0.05):结论:无论使用哪种粘合剂,C因子都会降低复合树脂与牙本质的µTBS。与通用粘合剂 G-premio Bond 和 Single Bond Universal 相比,Adper Single Bond 2 的 µTBS 更高。