Bond strength of adhesive restorations to Er : YAG laser-treated dentin

Background and Objective: evaluate the adhesion of adhesive restorations with and without a base of resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC) to dentin irradiated with Er:YAG laser.Study Design/Materials and Methods: Twenty-four human molar teeth were divided into 6 groups (n=4): G1) 37% Phosphoric acid (PA) + Adhesive system (Ad) + Composite resin (CR); G2) RMGIC + CR; G3) Laser (60mJ-5Hz-20s) + PA + Ad + CR; G4) Laser (60 mJ-5 Hz-20 s) + RMGIC + CR; G5) Laser (100mJ-5Hz-20s) + PA + Ad + CR; G6) Laser (100mJ-5Hz-20s) + RMGIC + CR. Teeth were prepared, restored and cut into specimens, according to the treatment proposed and to methodology for microtensile test. Data were submitted to ANOVA and Tukey statistical tests (alpha=5%).Results:. The mean values for adhesion (MPa) and standard deviation (+/- SD) were: G1) 26.30(+/- 4.50), G2) 5.34(+/- 2.87), G3) 21.16(+/- 6.01), G4) 5.22(+/- 1.52), G5) 22.23(+/- 4.98), G6) 5.25(+/- 3.08).Conclusion: the use of Er:YAG laser did not influence on the restorations adhesion.

Microtensile bond strength of different adhesive systems in dentin irradiated with Er : YAG laser

The objective this study was to evaluate in vitro the bond strength of two etch-and-rise and one self-etching adhesive system after dentin irradiation with Er:YAG (erbium: yttrium aluminum garnet) laser using microtensile test. The results revealed that the groups treated with laser Er:YAG presented less tensile bond strength, independently to the adhesive system used. The prompt L-pop adhesive presented less microtensile bond strength compared to the other adhesives evaluated. There was no difference between single bond and excite groups. The adhesive failures were predominant in all the experimental groups. The Er:YAG laser influenced negatively bond strength values of adhesive systems tested in dental substrate.

Bond strength of an adhesive system irradiated with Nd : YAG laser in dentin treated with Er : YAG laser

The purpose of this in vitro study was to verify through micro tensile bond test the bond strength of an adhesive system irradiated with Nd:YAG laser in dentine previously treated with Er:YAG laser. Twenty caries free extracted human third molars were used. The teeth were divided in four experimental groups (n = 5): (G1) control group; (G2) irradiation of the adhesive system with the Nd:YAG laser; (G3) dentin treatment with Er:YAG laser; (G4) dentin treatment with Er:YAG laser followed by the irradiation of the adhesive system with Nd:YAG laser. The Er:YAG laser fluency parameter for the dentin treatment was of 60 J/cm(2). ne adhesive system was irradiated with the Nd:YAG laser with fluency of 100 J/cm(2). Dental restorations were performed with Adper Single Bond 2/Z250. One tooth from each group was prepared for the evaluation of the adhesive interface under SEM and bond failure tests were also performed and evaluated. The statistical analysis showed statistical significant difference between the groups G1 and G3, G1 and G4, G2 and G3, and G2 and G4; and similarity between the groups G1 and G2, and G3 and G4. The adhesive failures were predominant in all the experimental groups. The SEM analysis showed an adhesive interface with features confirming the results of the mechanical tests. The Nd:YAG laser on the adhesive system did not influence the bond strength in dentin treated or not with the Er:YAG laser.

Nd:YAG Laser Irradiation of Etched/Unetched Dentin Through an Uncured Two-step Etch-and-Rinse Adhesive and its Effect on Microtensile Bond Strength

Purpose: To evaluate whether Nd:YAG laser irradiation of etched and unetched dentin through an uncured adhesive affected the microtensile bond strength (pTBS).Materials and Methods: Flat dentin surfaces were created in 19 extracted human third molars. Adper Single Bond (SB) adhesive was applied over etched (groups 1 to 3) or unetched dentin (groups 4 to 6). The dentin was then irradiated with a Nd:YAG laser through the uncured adhesive, using 0.75 or 1 W power settings, except for the control groups (groups 1 and 4). The adhesive was light cured and composite crowns were built up. After 24 h, the teeth were sectioned into beams, with cross-sectional areas of 0.49 mm(2), and were stressed under tension. Data were statistically analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (alpha = 5%). Dentin surfaces of fractured specimens and the interfaces of untested beams were observed under scanning electron microscopy (SEM).Results: Acid etching, laser irradiation, and their interaction significantly affected bonding (p < 0.05). Laser irradiation did not improve bonding of etched dentin to resin (p > 0.05). However, higher pTBS means were found on unetched lased dentin (groups 5 and 6), but only in comparison to group 4, where neither lasing nor etching was performed. Groups 4 to 6 showed the lowest pTBS means among all groups tested (p < 0.05). Laser irradiation did not change the characteristics of the hybrid layers created, while solidification globules were observed on lased dentin surfaces under SEM.Conclusion: Laser irradiation of dentin through the uncured adhesive did not significantly improve the pTBS in comparison to the suggested manufacturer's technique.

Effect of Cement Shade and Light-curing Unit on Bond Strength of a Ceramic Cemented to Dentin

Purpose: To evaluate the effect of cement shade, light-curing unit, and water storage on tensile bond strength (a) of a feldspathic ceramic resin bonded to dentin.Materials and Methods: The dentin surface of 40 molars was exposed and etched with 37% phosphoric acid, then an adhesive system was applied. Forty blocks of feldspathic ceramic (Vita VM7) were produced. The ceramic surface was etched with 10% hydrofluoric acid for 60 s, followed by the application of a silane agent and a dual-curing resin cement (Variolink II). Ceramic blocks were cemented to the treated dentin using either A3 or transparent (Tr) shade cement that was activated using either halogen or LED light for 40 s. All blocks were stored in 37 degrees C distilled water for 24 h before cutting to obtain non-trimmed bar-shaped specimens (adhesive area = 1 mm(2) +/- 0.1) for the microtensile bond strength test. The specimens were randomly grouped according to the storage time: no storage or stored for 150 days in 37 degrees C distilled water. Eight experimental groups were obtained (n = 30). The specimens were submitted to the tensile bond strength test using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The data were statistically analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc tests (alpha = 0.05).Results: The mean bond strength values were significantly lower for the corresponding water stored groups, except for the specimens using A3 resin cement activated by halogen light. There was no significance difference in mean bond strength values among all groups after water storage.Conclusion: Water storage had a detrimental effect under most experimental conditions. For both cement shades investigated (Tr and A3) under the same storage condition, the light-curing units (QTH and LED) did not affect the mean microtensile bond strengths of resin-cemented ceramic to dentin.

Effects of Self-Etching Adhesive Systems Used in the Dental Modelling Technique on the Cohesive Strength of Composite Resin

This study evaluated the cohesive strength of composite using self-etching adhesive systems (SE) in the lubrication of instruments between layers of composite. The specimens were made by using a Teflon (R) device. SE were used at the interface to lubricate the instruments: Group 1(G1) - control group, no lubricant was used; Group 2(G2) -Futurabond (R) M; Group 3(G3) - Optibond (R) All-In-One; Group 4(G4) - Clearfil (R) SE Bond; Group 5(G5) - Futurabond (R) NR; Group 6(G6) - Adper (R) SE Plus; Group 7(G7) - One Up Bond (R) F. Specimens were submitted to the tensile test to evaluate the cohesive strength. Data were submitted to the ANOVA and Tukey tests. ANOVA showed a value of p = 0.00. The average means (SD): G2 = 11.33(+/-3.44) a, G3 = 15.36(+/-4.06) ab, G4 = 18.9(+/-4.72) bc, G7 = 19.62(+/-4.46) bc, G5 = 21.02(+/-5.09) bc, G6 = 23.39(+/-4.17) cd, and G1 = 28.49(+/-2.89) d. All SE decreased the cohesive strength of the composite, except for Adper (R) SE Plus.

Evaluation of Bond Strength of Self-adhesive Cements to Dentin With or Without Application of Adhesive Systems

Purpose: To evaluate the bond strength of indirect restorations to dentin using self-adhesive cements with and without the application of adhesive systems.Material and Methods: Seventy-two bovine incisors were used, in which the buccal surfaces were ground down to expose an area of dentin measuring a minimum of 4 x 4 mm. The indirect resin composite Resilab was used to make 72 blocks, which were cemented onto the dentin surface of the teeth and divided into 4 groups (n = 18): group 1: self-adhesive resin cement BiFix SE, applied according to manufacturer's recommendations; group 2: self-adhesive resin cement RelyX Unicem, used according to manufacturer's recommendations; group 3: etch-and-rinse Solobond M adhesive system + BiFix SE; group 4: etch-and-rinse Single Bond 2 adhesive system + RelyX Unicem. The specimens were sectioned into sticks and subjected to microtensile testing in a universal testing machine (EMIC DL-200MF). Data were subjected to one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (alpha = 5%).Results: The mean values (+/- standard deviation) obtained for the groups were: group 1: 15.28 (+/- 8.17)(a), group 2: 14.60 (+/- 5.21)(a), group 3: 39.20 (+/- 9.98)(c), group 4: 27.59 (+/- 6.57)(b). Different letters indicate significant differences (ANOVA; p = 0.0000).Conclusion: The application of adhesive systems before self-adhesive cements significantly increased the bond strength to dentin. In group 2, RelyX Unicem associated with the adhesive system Single Bond 2 showed significantly lower mean tensile bond strengths than group 3 (BiFix SE associated with the etch-and-rinse Solobond M adhesive system).

Evaluation of the Cohesive Strength Between Resin Composite and Light-curing Characterizing Materials

Purpose: To evaluate the cohesive strength between composite and different light-curing characterizing materials (LCCM), which were prepared using the intrinsic technique.Materials and Methods: One hundred composite specimens were made by using a prefabricated Teflon device, and a layer of LCCM was applied at the interface. The specimens were divided into 5 groups (n = 20): group 1 (control), no LCCM was used; group 2: application of White Kolor Plus Pigment (Kerr) LCCM; group 3: White Tetric Color Pigment (Ivoclar/Vivadent) LCCM; group 4: Brown Kolor Plus Pigment (Kerr) LCCM; group 5: Black Tetric Color Pigment (Ivoclar/Vivadent) LCCM. All materials were used according to the manufacturers' instructions. Specimens were submitted to a tensile test in a universal testing machine (EMIC DL-200MF) to evaluate the cohesive strength at the composite interface. Data were subjected to one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (alpha = 5%).Results: ANOVA showed a p-value = 0.0001, indicating that there were significant differences among the groups. The mean values in MPa (+/- standard deviation) obtained for the groups were: G1: 28.5 (+/-2.74)a; G2: 23.5 (+/-2.47)b; G3: 20.3 (+/-2.49)b; G4: 10.5 (+/-2.40)c; G5: 9.66 (+/-3.06)c. The groups with the same letters presented no significant differences. The control group presented statistically significantly higher cohesive strengths when compared to the other groups. The groups in which Brown Kolor Plus Pigment and Black Tetric Color Pigment LCCM were used showed significantly lower cohesive strengths when compared to the groups in which White Kolor Plus Pigment and White Tetric Color Pigment LCMM were used.Conclusion: The use of LCCM produced with the intrinsic technique reduced the cohesive strength of composite.

Effects of Resinous Monomers Used in Restorative Dental Modeling on the Cohesive Strength of Composite Resin

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cohesive strength of the composite using different resinous monomers to lubricate instruments used in the Restorative Dental Modeling Insertion Technique (RDMIT).Materials and Methods: The composite specimens were made by using a prefabricated Teflon device. Different resinous monomers were used at the interface to lubricate the instruments, for a total of 72 specimens divided into 6 groups: 1. control group, no resinous monomer was used; 2. Composite Wetting Resin; 3. C & B Liquid; 4. Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Adhesive; 4. Adper Single Bond Adhesive; 6. Prime & Bond NT. Specimens were submitted to the circular area tensile test to evaluate the cohesive strength at the composite interfaces. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey's test (alpha = 0.05).Results: ANOVA showed a value of p < 0.0001, which indicated that there were significant differences among the groups. The means (SD) for the different groups were: Adper Single Bond Adhesive: 26 (12) a; control group: 28 (3) ab; Prime & Bond NT: 32 (12) ab; Composite Wetting Resin: 36 (9) abc; C&B Liquid: 38 (7) bc; Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Adhesive: 46 (10) c. Groups denoted with the same letters were not significantly different. Only Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Adhesive, used for direct restorations, had a statistically significantly higher bond strength than the control group, Adper Single Bond Adhesive, and Prime & Bond NT. Adper Single Bond with Adhesive showed a statistically significantly lower mean value than C & B Liquid.Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that the resinous monomers used for lubricating the instruments in the RDMIT did not alter the mechanical properties of the composite, and therefore did not reduce the cohesive bond strength at the composite interfaces.

Bond strength and morphology of resin materials applied to the occlusal surface of primary molars

International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 2012; 22: 435441 Background. Hydrophilic adhesives may be used as pit and fissure sealants (sealants), but there is concern about the ability of self-etching adhesives to bond sealants to enamel. Aim. To study the bond strength (BS) and morphology of adhesive systems used as sealants. Design. OptiBond FL, OptiBond All-in-One, combined OptiBond All-in-One + OptiBond FL adhesive, and Fluroshield were applied to the occlusal surfaces of 16 primary molars (n = 4). Teeth were stored in distilled water (24 h at 37 degrees C) and sectioned through the interface to obtain sticks (0.8 mm2) tested under a tensile load (0.5 mm/min). Failure modes were observed. Data were analysed by ANOVA and Tukeys tests (a = 5%). The morphology of 12 primary molars was examined in terms of the etching pattern and resin reproduction. Results. Differences in the BS were found (P = 0.001), with OptiBond FL showing the highest (36.84 +/- 5.7 MPa), Fluroshield (24.26 +/- 2.13 MPa) and OptiBond All-in-One (17.12 +/- 4.97 MPa) similar, and OptiBond All-in-One + OptiBond FL adhesive the lowest (9.8 +/- 2.94 MPA). OptiBond FL showed the best results in terms of morphology. Conclusion. Under the conditions of this study, OptiBond FL was the best material to be used for sealing.

Evaluation of varying amounts of thermal cycling on bond strength and permanent deformation of two resilient denture liners

Statement of problem. Two problems found in prostheses with resilient liners are bond failure to the acrylic resin base and increased permanent deformation due to material aging.Purpose. This in vitro study evaluated the effect of varying amounts of thermal cycling on bond strength and permanent deformation of 2 resilient denture liners bonded to an acrylic resin base.Material and methods. Plasticized acrylic resin (PermaSoft) or silicone (Softliner) resilient lining materials were processed to a heat-polymerized acrylic resin (QC-20). One hundred rectangular specimens (10 X 10-mm(2) cross-sectional area) and 100 cylindrically-shaped specimens (12.7-mm diameter X 19.0-mm height) for each liner/resin combination were used for the tensile and deformation tests, respectively. Specimen shape and liner thickness were standardized. Specimens were divided into 9 test groups (n=10) and were thermal cycled for 200, 500, 1000, 1500, 2000, 2500, 3000, 3500, and 4000 cycles. Control specimens (n=10) were stored for 24 hours in water at 37degreesC. Mean bond strength, expressed as stress at failure (MPa), was determined with a tensile test using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 5 mm/min. Analysis of failure mode, expressed as a percent (%), was recorded as either cohesive, adhesive, or both, after observation. Permanent deformation, expressed as a percent (%), was determined using ADA specification no. 18. Data from both tests were examined with a 2-way analysis of variance and a Tukey test (alpha=.05).Results. For the tensile test, Softliner specimens submitted to different thermal cycling regimens demonstrated no significantly different bond strength values from the control; however, there was a significant difference between the PermaSoft control group (0.47 +/- 0.09 MPa [mean +/- SD]) and the 500 cycle group (0.46 +/- 0.07 MPa) compared to the 4000 cycle group (0.70 +/- 0.20 MPa) (P<.05). With regard to failure type, the Softliner groups presented adhesive failure (100%) regardless of specimen treatment. PermaSoft groups presented adhesive (53%), cohesive (12%), or a combined mode of failure (35%). For the deformation test, there was no significant difference among the Softliner specimens. However, a significant difference was observed between control and PermaSoft specimens after 1500 or more cycles (1.88% +/- 0.24%) (P<.05).Conclusions. This in vitro study indicated that bond strength and permanent deformation of the 2 resilient denture liners tested varied according to their chemical composition.

Effect of thermocycling on bond strength and elasticity of 4 long-term soft denture liners

Statement of problem. Two problems found in prostheses with soft liners are bond failure to the acrylic resin base and loss of elasticity due to material aging.Purpose. This in vitro study evaluated the effect of thermocycling on the bond strength and elasticity of 4 long-term soft denture liners to acrylic resin bases.Material and methods. Four soft lining materials (Molloplast-B, Flexor, Permasoft, and Pro Tech) and 2 acrylic resins (Classico, and Lucitone 199) were processed for testing according to manufacturers' instructions. Twenty rectangular specimens (10 X 10-mm(2) cross-sectional area) and twenty cylinder specimens (12.7-mm diameter X 19.0-mm height) for each liner/resin combination were used for the tensile and deformation tests, respectively. Specimen shape and liner thickness were standardized. Samples were divided into a test group that was thermocycled 3000 times and a control group that was stored for 24 hours in water at 37degreesC. Mean bond strength, expressed in megapascals (Wa), was determined in the tensile test with the use of a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 5 mm/min. Elasticity, expressed as percent of permanent deformation, was calculated with an instrument for measuring permanent deformation described in ADA/ANSI specification 18. Data from both tests were examined with 1-way analysis of variance and a Tukey test, with calculation of a Scheffe interval at a 95% confidence level.Results. In the tensile test under control conditions, Molloplast-B (1.51 +/- 0.28 MPa [mean SD]) and Pro Tech (1.44 +/- 0.27 MPa) liners had higher bond strength values than the others (P < .05). With regard to the permanent deformation test, the lowest values were observed for Molloplast-B (0.48% +/- 0.19%) and Flexor (0.44% +/- 0.14%) (P < .05). Under thermocycling conditions, the highest bond strength occurred with Molloplast-B (1.37 +/- 0.24 MPa) (P < .05) With regard to the deformation test, Flexor (0.46% +/- 0.13%) and Molloplast-B (0.44% +/- 0.17%) liners had lower deformation values than the others (P < .05).Conclusion. The results of this in vitro study indicated that bond strength and permanent deformity values of the 4 soft denture liners tested varied according to their chemical composition. These tests are not completely valid for application to dental restorations because the forces they encounter are more closely related to shear and tear. However, the above protocol serves as a good method of investigation to evaluate differences between thermocycled and control groups.

Comparison of the tensile bond strengths of cast metal crowns luted with resin cements

The limitation of photoactivation of dual-polymerized resin cements along the margins of metal restorations may adversely affect the mechanical properties of these cements, thus impairing the retention of restorations. The aim of this study was to assess the bond strength of cast metal crowns cemented with three dual-polymerized resin cements, using a chemically-activated resin cement and zinc phosphate as controls. Fifty nickel-chromium alloy crowns were cast and randomly assigned to five groups of equal size. Castings were cemented on their corresponding metal dies with one of the tested luting agents: Scotchbond Resin Cement, Enforce and Panavia F (dual-polymerized resin cements), Cement-It (chemically-activated resin cement) and Zinc Phosphate Cement (zinc phosphate cement). Specimens were stored in distilled water at 37 degreesC for 24 h and then loaded in tension until failure. Panavia F and Zinc Phosphate Cement provided the highest and lowest bond strength means, respectively. Scotchbond Resin Cement, Enforce and Cement-It cements exhibited similar intermediate values, but with statistically significant difference compared to the other materials (P < 0.05). Even with the restriction or absence of light activation, all tested dual-polymerized resin cements produced significantly higher bond strength than did the zinc phosphate cement and yielded similar or better results than the chemically activated cement. It should be pointed out that the findings of this study relate to a test scenario which does not mimic clinical circumstances and that further work is required to identify the clinical significance of the reported tensile bond strength differences between the different luting materials.

Influence of different dentin etching times and concentrations and air-abrasion technique on dentin microtensile bond strength

Purpose: To determine the influence of different dentin treatments on the microtensile bond strengths of adhesive resins to dentin. Methods: Fifteen human molars were ground to 600-grit to obtain flat root-dentin surfaces. Five different dentin treatments were evaluated: Group 1 - 10% phosphoric acid for 30 seconds; Group 2 - 37% phosphoric acid for 15 seconds; Group 3 - air-abrasion for 10 seconds followed by 10% phosphoric acid for 30 seconds; Group 4 - air-abasion for 10 seconds followed by 37% phosphoric acid for 15 seconds. The dental adhesive (OptiBond Solo Plus) was applied according to manufacturer's instructions and followed by composite (Z100) application to provide sufficient bulk for microtensile bond testing. All samples were placed in distilled water for 24 hours at 37degreesC, thermocycled for 500 cycles in distilled water at 10degreesC and 50degreesC, and serially sliced perpendicular to the adhesive surface and subjected to tensile forces (0.5 mm/minute). Additional samples were prepared for SEM to observe the adhesive interface. Results: Group 2 exhibited significantly (P< 0.05) lower bond strength values than all other treatments. The bond strengths of the different conditions were (in MPa): Group 1: 43.0 +/- 16.1; Group 2: 29.2 +/- 8.3; Group 3: 48.1 +/- 14.2; Group 4: 41.0 +/- 9.3. The dentin treated with phosphoric acid 37% for 15 seconds showed the lowest values of microtensile bond strength. The results obtained with Groups 1, 3 and 4 were statistically similar.

Effects of surface treatment, hydration and application method on the bond strength of a silorane adhesive and resin system to dentine

Objectives: To evaluate the effects of surface treatment, surface hydration (SH) and application method (AM) on the tensile bond strength of the Silorane Adhesive System (SAS) to dentine. Methods: Ninety bovine teeth were used. For the control group (n = 10), each dentine surface was treated according to the manufacturer's instructions of the SAS. The remaining teeth were randomly distributed into two groups (n = 40), according to the type of dentine surface treatment (ST) - 37% phosphoric acid or Er:YAG Laser prior to the application of the SAS. Each group was further divided into 2 subgroups (n = 20), according to the SH status: dry (D) or wet (W). Each subgroup was further divided into 2 subgroups (n = 10), according to the application method [AM: Active (AC) mode or Passive (PA) mode]. A coat of resin composite (Filtek P90) was applied on the surface. Artificial ageing was performed with a thermo-mechanical cycling machine. The specimens were sectioned into 1 mm × 1 mm × 10 mm sticks and stressed to failure using a universal testing machine. The remaining teeth in each group were used for Scanning Electron Microscopy to examine the fractured area. Data were subjected to a three-way ANOVA, Tukey's test and Dunnet's test (α = 0.05). Results: The ANOVA showed significant differences for SH and AM, but not for ST. For SH, the results of Tukey's test were (in MPa): D-14.9(±3.8)a, W-17.1(±4.3)b; and for AM: PA-14. 9(±4.2)a, AC-17.1(±3.9) b. Conclusions: Acid etching, when combined with a moist dentine surface and the use of primer agitation, improves the bond strength of the SAS to dentine. Clinical Significance: According to the results of the present in vitro study, modification of the application protocols for the silorane-based adhesive system may improve its clinical performance. © 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd.