Micro-Shear Bond Strength of Different Adhesives to Human Dental Enamel

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

Development of a genetic method to estimate effective spawner numbers in the NPF and Queensland tiger prawn fisheries

OBJECTIVES: 1. To critically evaluate a variety of mathematical methods of calculating effective population size (Ne) by conducting comprehensive computer simulations and by analysis of empirical data collected from the Moreton Bay population of tiger prawns. 2. To lay the groundwork for the application of the technology in the NPF. 3. To produce software for the calculation of Ne, and to make it widely available.

Influence of the bonding substrate in dental composite polymerization stress testing

Our objective was to compare the polymerization stress (sigma(pol)) of a series of composites obtained using poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) or glass as bonding substrates, and to compare the results with those from in vitro microleakage of composite restorations. The tested hypothesis was that stress values obtained in a less rigid testing system (i.e. using PMMA) would show a better relationship with microleakage data. Five dental composites were tested: Filtek Z250 (FZ), Z100 (Z1), Concept (CO), Durafill (DU) and Heliomolar (HM). sigma(pol) was determined in 1 mm high specimens inserted between two rods (empty set = 5 mm) of either PMMA or glass. The composite elastic modulus (E) was obtained by three-point bending. sigma(pol) and E data were submitted to a one-way analysis of variance/Tukey test (alpha = 0.05). For the microleakage test (MI), bovine incisors received cylindrical cavities (empty set = 5 mm, h = 2 mm), which were restored in bulk. After storage for 24 h in water, specimens were subjected to dye penetration using AgNO(3) as tracer. Specimens were sectioned twice, perpendicularly, and microleakage was measured (in millimeters) under 20x magnification. Data from MI were submitted to the Kruskal-Wallis test. Means (SD) of sigma(pol) (MPa) using glass/PMMA were FZ: 7.5(1.8)(A)/2.5(0.2)(bc); Z1: 7.3(0.5)(A)/2.8(0.3)(ab); CO: 6.8(1.1)(A)/3.2(0.5)(a); DU: 4.5(0.7)(B)/2.0(0.2)(bc); HM: 3.5(0.2)(B)/2.3(0.3)(c). sigma(pol) obtained using PMMA rods were 34-67% lower than with glass. Means (SD) for tooth average/tooth maximum microleakage were FZ: 0.92(0.19)(B)/1.53(0.30)(a); Z1: 1.19(0.21)(A)/1.75(0.20)(a); CO: 1.26(0.25)(A)/1.78(0.24)(a); DU: 0.83(0.30)(B)/1.68(0.46)(a): HM: 0.81(0.27)(B)/1.64(0.54)(a). The tested hypothesis was confirmed, as the composites showed the same ordering both in the polymerization stress test using PMMA rods and in the microleakage test. (C) 2009 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.