943 resultados para Self-etching adhesive systems
Resumo:
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)
Resumo:
The aim of this study was to evaluate the micro-shear bond strength of 5 adhesive systems to enamel, one single-bottle acid-etch adhesive (O), two self-etching primers (P) and two all-in-one self-etching adhesives (S). Method: Sixty premolar enamel surfaces (buccal or lingual) were ground flat with 400- and 600-grit SiC papers and randomly divided into 5 groups (n=12), according to the adhesive system.. SB2 - Single Bond 2 (O); CSE - Clearfil SE Bond (P); ADS - AdheSE (P); PLP - Adper Prompt L-Pop (S); XE3 - Xeno III (S). Tygon tubing (inner diameter of 0.8mm) restricted the bonding area to obtain the resin composite (Z250) cylinders. After storage in distilled water at 37 degrees C for 24h and thermocycling, micro-shear testing was performed (crosshead speed of 0.5mm/min). Data were submitted to one-way ANOVA and Tukey test (a=5%). Samples were also subjected to stereomicroscopic and SEM evaluations after micro-shear testing. Mean bond strength values (MPa +/- SD) and the results of Tukey test were: SB2: 36.36(+/- 3.34)a; ADS: 33.03(+/- 7.83)a; XE3: 32.76(+/- 5.61)a; CSE: 30.61(+/- 6.68)a; PLP: 22.17(+/- 6.05)b. Groups with the same letter were not statistically different. It can be concluded that no significant difference was there between SB2, ADS, XE3 and CSE, in spite of different etching patterns of these adhesives. Only PLP presented statistically lower bond strengths compared with others. J Clin Pediatr Dent 35(3): 301-304, 2011
Resumo:
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.
Resumo:
Purpose: To evaluate the 1-year clinical performance of three self-etching adhesives (Adper Prompt L-Pop, Clearfil S-3 Bond, iBond) in posterior composite restorations using one etch&rinse adhesive (One-Step Plus) as control. Methods: Upon approval by the Institutional Review Board, 121 restorations were inserted in 38 subjects. The adhesives were applied as per manufacturers' instructions. Preparations were restored with a nanofilled resin composite (Filtek Supreme) and evaluated at baseline, 6 months, and 1 year. Statistical analyses included the Chi-square distribution with the McNemar non-parametric test (P< 0.05). Results: At 1 year, 111 restorations in 35 subjects were evaluated using the USPHS modified criteria. No significant changes were observed for the etch&rinse adhesive One-Step Plus. At 1 year the number of Alfa ratings decreased significantly for Clearfil S-3 Bond and for iBond in the categories color match, marginal staining, and marginal adaptation. For Adper Prompt L-Pop, marginal adaptation at 1 year was significantly worse than at baseline. Postoperative sensitivity to air improved significantly for Adper Prompt L-Pop, Clearfil S-3 Bond, and iBond. When the evaluation criteria were paired at 1 year, iBond resulted in a significantly lower number of Alfa ratings than any of the other adhesives for color match, marginal staining, and marginal adaptation. One-Step Plus resulted in a greater number of Alfa ratings for marginal adaptation than either Adper Prompt L-Pop or Clearfil S-3 Bond. Marginal adaptation was significantly better for Clearfil S-3 Bond than for Adper Prompt L-Pop. The post-operative sensitivity measured at 1 year for Adper Prompt L-Pop was statistically better than that for One-Step Plus.
Resumo:
Acid etching promotes microporosities on enamel surface, which provide a better bonding surface to adhesive materials. The purpose of this study was to comparatively analyze the microstructure of enamel surface after etching with 37% phosphoric acid or with two self-etching primers, Non-rinse conditioner (NRC) and Clearfil SE Bond (CSEB) using scanning electron microscopy. Thirty sound premolars were divided into 3 groups with ten teeth each: Group 1: the buccal surface was etched with 37% phosphoric acid for 15 seconds; Group 2: the buccal surface was etched with NRC for 20 seconds; Group 3: the buccal surface was etched with CSEB for 20 seconds. Teeth from Group 1 were rinsed with water; teeth from all groups were air-dried for 15 seconds. After that, all specimens were processed for scanning electron microscopy and analyzed in a Jeol 6100 SEM. The results showed deeper etching when the enamel surface was etched with 37% phosphoric acid, followed by NRC and CSEB. It is concluded that 37% phosphoric acid is still the best agent for a most effective enamel etching.
Resumo:
Aim: Based on the hypothesis the application of a low-viscosity hydrophobic resin coating improves the bond of all-in-one adhesive, the purpose of the study was to evaluate the bond strength of four adhesive systems to bovine root dentin using the push-out test method. Methods and Materials: The root canals of 32 bovine roots (16 mm) were prepared to a length of 12 mm using a FRC Postec Plus preparation drill. The specimens were allocated into four groups according to the adhesive system used: (Group 1) All-in-one Xeno III; (Group 2) All-in-one Xeno III+ScotchBond Multi-Purpose Plus Adhesive; (Group 3) Simplified Etch & Rinse One Step Plus; and (Group 4) Multi-Bottle Etch & Rinse All-Bond 2. A fiber-reinforced composite retention post was reproduced using an additional silicon impression and fabricated with DuoLink resin cement. The root specimens were treated with the selected adhesive systems, and the resin posts were luted in the canals with DuoLink resin cement. Each root specimen was cross sectioned into four samples (±1.8 mm in thickness), and the post sections were pushed-out to determine the bond strength to dentin. Results: Group 2 (2.9±1.2) was statistically higher than Group 1 (1.1±0.5) and Group 3 (1.1±0.5). Groups 1 and 3 showed no statistically significant difference while Group 4 (2.0±0.7) presented similar values (p>0.05) to Groups 1, 2, and 3 [(one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)] and Tukey test, α=0.05). Conclusion: The hypothesis was accepted since the application of the additional layer of a low-viscosity bonding resin improved the bond of the all-in-one adhesive. Further studies must be conducted to evaluate the long-term bond.
Resumo:
Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the bond strength of adhesive systems to dentin contaminated by temporary cements with or without eugenol. Method: Flat dentin surfaces were obtained from twenty-four human third molars. With exception of the control group (n=8), the surfaces were covered with Interim Restorative Material (Caulk Dentsplay, Milford, DE, USA) or Cavit (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) and kept in an oven at 37°C for seven days. After removing the cements, the adhesive systems Adper Single Bond (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) or Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray Co. Ltd., Osaka, Japan) were applied in accordance with the manufacturers' recommendations, and then the crowns were constructed in of resin composite. The teeth were sectioned into specimens with a cross-sectional bond area of 0.81mm2, which were submitted to microtensile testing in a mechanical test machine at an actuator speed of 0.5mm/min. The data were analyzed by t- and ANOVA tests, complemented by Tukey tests (α=0.05). Results: For Adper Single Bond (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA), bond strength did not differ statistically (p>0.05) for all the experimental conditions. For Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray Co. Ltd., Osaka, Japan), only the Interim Restorative Material (Caulk Dentsplay, Milford, DE, USA) Group showed significantly lower bond strength (30.1 ± 13.8 MPa) in comparison with the other groups; control (38.9 ± 13.5 MPa) and Cavit (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) (42.1 ± 11.0 MPa), which showed no significant difference between them. Conclusion: It was concluded that the previous covering of dentin with temporary cement containing eugenol had a deleterious effect on the adhesive performance of the self-etching system only.
Resumo:
This study aimed to compare in vitro the shear bond strength between metallic brackets (Abzil) with conventional mesh bases and metallic brackets with bases industrially sandblasted with aluminum oxide using three adhesive systems, in order to assess the influence of sandblasting on adhesiveness and to compare 3 different bonding systems. Two hundred and forty bovine incisors were used and randomly divided into 6 groups (40 teeth in each group), according to the bracket base and to the bonding system. The brackets were direct-bonded in bovine teeth with 3 adhesive systems: System A - conventional Transbond™ XT (3M -Unitek); System B - Transbond™ Plus Self Etching Primer + Transbond™ XT (3M - Unitek) and System C - Fuji ORTHO LC resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement in capsules (GC Corp.). Shear bond strength tests were performed 24 hours after bonding, in a DL-3000 universal testing machine (EMIC), using a load cell of 200 kgf and a speed of 1 mm/min. The results were submitted to statistical analysis and showed no significant difference between conventional and sandblasted bracket bases. However, comparison between the bonding systems presented significantly different results. System A (14.92 MPa) and system C (13.24 MPa) presented statistically greater shear bond strength when compared to system B (10.66 MPa). There was no statistically significant difference between system A and system C.
Resumo:
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.
Resumo:
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)
Resumo:
Pós-graduação em Ciências Odontológicas - FOAR
Resumo:
Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)
Resumo:
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)
Resumo:
Pós-graduação em Odontologia - FOAR
Resumo:
Pós-graduação em Odontologia - FOA