Microtensile vs Microshear Bond Strength of All-in-One Adhesives to Unground Enamel

Purpose To determine the bond strength to unground enamel of all in one adhesives in comparison with an etch and rinse system and to compare the reliability of microtensile and microshear methods in providing such measurements Materials and Methods The bonding procedure was performed on enamel of 64 extracted molars The tested all in one adhesives were Bond Force (Tokuyama), AdheSE One (Ivoclar Vivadent) and Xeno V (Dentsply) Prime&Bond NT (Dentsply) served as control Microtensile specimens were obtained from 4 teeth per group Twelve teeth per group were used for microshear testing Microtensile specimens that failed prior to testing were included in statistical calculations, they were assigned the lowest value measured in the respective group Failure modes were observed under light microscope and classified (cohesive within substrates, adhesive mixed) Statistically significant differences in bond strength were assessed among the adhesives within each testing method and between microshear and microtensile data for each adhesive Failure mode distributions were compared using the chi square test Results All in-one adhesives had similar microshear and microtensile bond strengths In both testing methods, the etch and rinse system achieved the strongest bond For all adhesives significantly higher bond strengths were measured with the microshear test In microtensile testing specimens bonded with the etch and rinse adhesive exhibited a significantly different distribution of failure modes The coefficients of variation were extremely high for microtensile bond strength data, particularly of all in one adhesives Conclusion The adhesive potential to intact enamel of recently introduced all in-one adhesives was inferior to that of an etch and rinse system When testing bond strength to enamel of all in one adhesives, microshear testing may be a more accurate method than microtensile

Flat-Oval Root Canal Preparation with Self-Adjusting File Instrument: A Micro-Computed Tomography Study

Introduction: The aim of this study was to evaluate the root canal preparation in flat-oval canals treated with either rotary or self-adjusting file (SAF) by using micro-tomography analysis. Methods: Forty mandibular incisors were scanned before and after root canal instrumentation with rotary instruments (n = 20) or SAF (n = 20). Changes in canal volume, surface area, and cross-sectional geometry were compared with preoperative values. Data were compared by independent sample t test and chi(2) test between groups and paired sample t test within the group (alpha = 0.05). Results: Overall, area, perimeter, roundness, and major and minor diameters revealed no statistical difference between groups (P > .05). In the coronal third, percentage of prepared root canal walls and mean increases of volume and area were significantly higher with SAF (92.0%, 1.44 +/- 0.49 mm(3), 0.40 +/- 0.14 mm(2), respectively) than rotary instrumentation (62.0%, 0.81 +/- 0.45 mm(3), 0.23 +/- 0.15 mm2, respectively) (P < .05). SAF removed dentin layer from all around the canal, whereas rotary instrumentation showed substantial untouched areas. Conclusions: In the coronal third, mean increases of area and volume of the canal as well as the percentage of prepared walls were significantly higher with SAF than with rotary instrumentation. By using SAF instruments, flat-oval canals were homogenously and circumferentially prepared. The size of the SAF preparation in the apical third of the canal was equivalent to those prepared with #40 rotary file with a 0.02 taper. (J Endod 2011;37:1002-1007)

Microtensile Bond Strength of Glass Fiber Posts Cemented with Self-adhesive and Self-etching Resin Cements

Purpose: To evaluate the bond strength of glass fiber posts to intraradicular dentin when cemented with self-etching and self-adhesive resin cements. Materials and Methods: Forty-eight single-rooted human teeth were decoronated, endodontically treated, post-space prepared and divided into 8 groups (n = 6). The glass fiber posts used were: Exacto (EA) (Angelus) and everStick (ES) (StichTeck), which were cemented with two self-adhesive resin cements: BisCem (BIS) (Bisco) and Rely-X Unicem (UNI) (3M/ESPE), and two self-etching resin cements: Esthetic Cementing System NAC100 (NAC) (Kuraray) and Panavia-F (PAN) (Kuraray). Specimens were thermocycled between 5 degrees C and 55 degrees C for 1000 cycles and stored in water at 37 degrees C for 1 month. Four 1-mm-thick (in cross section) rods were obtained from the cervical region of the roots. Specimens were then subjected to microtensile testing in a special machine (BISCO; Schaumburg, IL, USA) at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Microtensile bond strength (mu TBS) data were analyzed with two-way ANOVA and Tukey`s tests. Results: Means (and SD) of mu TBS (MPa) were: EA/PAN: 10.3 (4.1), EA/NAC: 14 (5.1) EA/BIS: 16.4 (4.8), EA/UNI: 19.8 (5.1), ES/PAN: 25.9 (6.1), ES/NAC: 29.1 (7), ES/BIS: 28.9 (6), ES/UNI: 30.5 (6.6). ANOVA indicated significant differences among the groups (p < 0.001). Mean mu TBS values obtained with ES post were significantly higher than those obtained with EA (p < 0.001). For EA, Tukey`s test indicated that higher mu TBS means were obtained with the self-adhesive resin cements (BIS and UNI), which were statistically significantly different (p < 0.05) from values obtained with the self-etching resin cements (PAN and NAC). Different cements had no significant effects on the bond strength values of ES post (p > 0.05). mu TBS values obtained with ES post were significantly higher than those obtained with EA post irrespective of the resin cement used. Conclusion: everStick posts resulted in the highest mean mu TBS values with all cements. Self-adhesive cements performed well in terms of bond strength.