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).

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.

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.

Effect of Surface Treatments on the Bond Strength between Composite Resin and Acrylic Resin Denture Teeth

Purpose: This investigation studied the effects of 3 surface treatments on the shear bond strength of a light-activated composite resin bonded to acrylic resin denture teeth. Materials and Methods: The occlusal surfaces of 30 acrylic resin denture teeth were ground flat with up to 400-grit silicon carbide paper. Three different surface treatments were evaluated: (1) the flat ground surfaces were primed with methyl methacrylate (MMA) monomer for 180 seconds; (2) light-cured adhesive resin was applied and light polymerized according to the manufacturer's instructions; and (3) treatment 1 followed by treatment 2. The composite resin was packed on the prepared surfaces using a split mold. The interface between tooth and composite was loaded at a cross-head speed of 0.5 mm/min until failure. Results: Analysis of variance indicated significant differences between the surface treatments. Results of mean comparisons using Tukey's test showed that significantly higher shear bond strengths were developed by bonding composite resin to the surfaces that were previously treated with MMA and then with the bonding agent when compared to the other treatments. Conclusion: Combined surface treatment of MMA monomer followed by application of light-cured adhesive resin provided the highest shear bond strength between composite resin and acrylic resin denture teeth.

Effect of 2% chlorhexidine on microtensile bond strength of composite to dentin

Purpose: To evaluate the effect of 2% chlorhexidine on the microtensile bond strength of composite resin to dentin treated with three dentin bonding systems. Materials and Methods: Flat dentinal surfaces were prepared in 24 extracted human third molars. Teeth were randomly divided into 8 distinct experimental groups according to the adhesive applied (Prime & Bond NT, Single Bond and Clearfil SE Bond), the application (yes/no) of chlorhexidine, and the time point at which it was applied (before or after acid etching the dentin). Composite resin blocks were built up over treated surfaces, and teeth were then stored in water at 37°C for 24 h. Samples were thermocycled, stored under the same conditions, and then vertically sectioned, thus obtaining specimens with 1.0 ± 0.1 mm2 cross-sectional area. Specimens were stressed in tension at 0.5 mm/min crosshead speed. Bond strength results were evaluated using a one-way ANOVA (p < 0.05). The modes of failures were verified using optical microscopy. Dentin disks were obtained from 3 additional teeth treated in the same manner for observation under SEM. The most representative samples of fractured specimens were also observed under SEM. Results: No statistically significant differences of bond strength values were found between any groups. Failures occurred mainly within the bond; exclusively adhesive fractures (adhesive-dentin) were not observed. Conclusion: The 2% chlorhexidine solution, applied before or after acid etching of the dentin, did not interfere with the microtensile bond strength of composite resin to the dentin treated with Prime & Bond NT, Single Bond, or Clearfil SE Bond bonding systems.

Effect of ceramic surface treatment on the microtensile bond strength between a resin cement and an alumina-based ceramic

Purpose: The objective of this study was to test the following hypothesis: the silica coating on ceramic surface increases the bond strength of resin cement to a ceramic. Materials and Methods: In-Ceram Alumina blocks were made and the ceramic surface was treated: G1 - sandblasting with 110-μm aluminum oxide particles; G2 - Rocatec System: tribochemicai silica coating (Rocatec-Pre powder + Rocatec-Plus powder + Rocatec-Sil); G3 - CoJet System: silica coating (CoJet-Sand) + ESPE-Sil. The ceramic blocks were cemented to composite blocks with Panavia F resin cement (under a load of 750 g/1 min). The cemented blocks were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 7 days and sectioned along the x and y axes with a diamond disk. Samples with an adhesive area of ca 0.8 mm 2 (n = 45) were obtained. The samples were attached to an adapted device for the microtensile test, which was performed in a universal testing machine (EMIC) at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Results: The obtained results were submitted to ANOVA and Tukey's test. Mean values of tensile strength (MPa) and standard deviation values were: (G1) 16.8 ± 3.2; (G2) 30.6 ± 4.5; (G3) 33.0 ± 5.0. G2 and 63 presented greater tensile strength than G1. There was no significant difference between G2 and G3. All the failures took place at the ceramic/resin cement interface. Conclusion: The silica coating (Rocatec or CoJet systems) of the ceramic surface increased the bond strength between the Panavia F resin cement and alumina-based ceramic.

Microtensile bond strength of a resin cement to glass infiltrated zirconia-reinforced ceramic: The effect of surface conditioning

This study evaluated the effect of three surface conditioning methods on the microtensile bond strength of resin cement to a glass-infiltrated zirconia-reinforced alumina-based core ceramic. Thirty blocks (5×5×4 mm) of In-Ceram Zirconia ceramics (In-Ceram Zirconia-INC-ZR, VITA) were fabricated according to the manufacturer's instructions and duplicated in resin composite. The specimens were polished and assigned to one of the following three treatment conditions (n=10): (1) Airborne particle abrasion with 110 μm Al2O3 particles + silanization, (2) Silica coating with 110 μm SiOx particles (Rocatec Pre and Plus, 3M ESPE) + silanization, (3) Silica coating with 30 μm SiOx particles (CoJet, 3M ESPE) + silanization. The ceramic-composite blocks were cemented with the resin cement (Panavia F) and stored at 37 °C in distilled water for 7 days prior to bond tests. The blocks were cut under coolant water to produce bar specimens with a bonding area of approximately 0.6 mm2. The bond strength tests were performed in a universal testing machine (cross-head speed: 1 mm/min). The mean bond strengths of the specimens of each block were statistically analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey's test (α≤0.05). Silica coating with silanization either using 110 μm SiOx or 30 μm SiOx particles increased the bond strength of the resin cement (24.6±2.7 MPa and 26.7±2.4 MPa, respectively) to the zirconia-based ceramic significantly compared to that of airborne particle abrasion with 110-μm Al2O3 (20.5±3.8 MPa) (ANOVA, P<0.05). Conditioning the INC-ZR ceramic surfaces with silica coating and silanization using either chairside or laboratory devices provided higher bond strengths of the resin cement than with airborne particle abrasion using 110 μm Al2O3. © 2005 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Microtensile bond strength between a quartz fiber post and a resin cement: Effect of post surface conditioning

Purpose: To test the bond strength between a quartz-fiber-reinforced composite post (FRC) and a resin cement. The null hypothesis was that the bond strength can be increased by using a chairside tribochemical silica-coating system. Materials and Methods: Thirty quartz-FRCs (Light-Post) were divided into 3 groups according to the post surface treatment: G1) Conditioning with 32% phosphoric acid (1 min), applying a silane coupling agent; G2) etching with 10% hydrofluoric acid (1 min), silane application; G3) chairside tribochemical silica coating method (CoJet System): air abrasion with 30-μ SiO x-modified Al2O3 particles, silane application. Thereafter, the posts were cemented into a cylinder (5 mm diameter, 15 mm height) with a resin cement (Duo-Link). After cementation, the specimens were stored in distilled water (37°C/24 h) and sectioned along the x and y axes with a diamond wheel under cooling (Lab-cut 1010) to create nontrimmed bar specimens. Each specimen was attached with cyanoacrylate to an apparatus adapted for the microtensile test. Microtensile testing was conducted on a universal testing machine (1 mm/min). The data obtained were submitted to the one-way ANOVA and Tukey test (α = 0.05). Results: A significant influence of the conditioning methods was observed (p < 0.0001). The bond strength of G3 (15.14 ± 3.3) was significantly higher than the bond strengths of G1 (6.9 ± 2.3) and G2 (12.60 ± 2.8) (p = 0.000106 and p = 0.002631, respectively). Notwithstanding the groups, all the tested specimens showed adhesive failure between the resin cement and FRC. Conclusion: The chairside tribochemical system yielded the highest bond strength between resin cement and quartz-fiber post. The null hypothesis was accepted (p < 0.0001).

Bond strength of a resin cement to high-alumina and zirconia-reinforced ceramics: The effect of surface conditioning

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of two surface conditioning methods on the microtensile bond strength of a resin cement to three high-strength core ceramics: high alumina-based (In-Ceram Alumina, Procera AllCeram) and zirconia-reinforced alumina-based (In-Ceram Zirconia) ceramics. Materials and Methods: Ten blocks (5 ×6 × 8 mm) of In-Ceram Alumina (AL), In-Ceram Zirconia (ZR), and Procera (PR) ceramics were fabricated according to each manufacturer's instructions and duplicated in composite. The specimens were assigned to one of the two following treatment conditions: (1) airborne particle abrasion with 110-μm Al2O3 particles + silanization, (2) silica coating with 30 μm SiOx particles (CoJet, 3M ESPE) + silanization. Each ceramic block was duplicated in composite resin (W3D-Master, Wilcos, Petrópolis, RJ, Brazil) using a mold made out of silicon impression material. Composite resin layers were incrementally condensed into the mold to fill up the mold and each layer was light polymerized for 40 s. The composite blocks were bonded to the surface-conditioned ceramic blocks using a resin cement system (Panavia F, Kuraray, Okayama, Japan). One composite resin block was fabricated for each ceramic block. The ceramic-composite was stored at 37°C in distilled water for 7 days prior to bond tests. The blocks were cut under water cooling to produce bar specimens (n = 30) with a bonding area of approximately 0.6 mm2. The bond strength tests were performed in a universal testing machine (crosshead speed: 1 mm/min). Bond strength values were statistically analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (≤ 0.05). Results: Silica coating with silanization increased the bond strength significantly for all three high-strength ceramics (18.5 to 31.2 MPa) compared to that of airborne particle abrasion with 110-μm Al2O3 (12.7-17.3 MPa) (ANOVA, p < 0.05). PR exhibited the lowest bond strengths after both Al2O3 and silica coating (12.7 and 18.5 MPa, respectively). Conclusion: Conditioning the high-strength ceramic surfaces with silica coating and silanization provided higher bond strengths of the resin cement than with airborne particle abrasion with 110-μm Al2O3 and silanization.

Microtensile bond strength of a resin cement to silica-coated and silanized in-ceram zirconia before and after aging

Purpose: This study compared the microtensile bond strength of resin-based cement (Panavia F) to silica-coated, silanized, glass-infiltrated high-alumina zirconia (In-Ceram Zirconia) ceramic in dry conditions and after various aging regimens. Materials and Methods: The specimens were placed in 1 of 4 groups: group 1: dry conditions (immediate testing without aging); group 2: water storage at 37°C for 150 days; group 3: 150 days of water storage followed by thermocycling (× 12,000, 5°C to 55°C); group 4: water storage for 300 days; group 5: water storage for 300 days followed by thermocycling. Results: Group 1 showed a significantly higher microtensile bond strength value (26.2 ± 1 MPa) than the other aging regimens (6.5 ± 1, 6.2 ± 2, 4.5 ± 1, 4.3 ± 1 MPa for groups 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively) (P < .01). Conclusion: Satisfactory results were seen in dry conditions, but water storage and thermocycling resulted in significantly weaker bonds between the resin cement and the zirconia.

Bond strength of acrylic teeth to denture base resin after various surface conditioning methods before and after thermocycling

This study aimed to evaluate the durability of adhesion between acrylic teeth and denture base acrylic resin. The base surfaces of 24 acrylic teeth were flatted and submitted to 4 surface treatment methods: SM1 (control): No SM; SM2: application of a methyl methacrylate-based bonding agent (Vitacol); SM3: air abrasion with 30-μm silicone oxide plus silane; SM4: SM3 plus SM2. A heat-polymerized acrylic resin was applied to the teeth. Thereafter, bar specimens were produced for the microtensile test at dry and thermocyled conditions (60 days water storage followed by 12,000 cycles). The results showed that bond strength was significantly affected by the SM (P < .0001) (SM4 = SM2 > SM3 > SM1) and storage regimens (P < .0001) (dry > thermocycled). The methyl methacrylate-based adhesive showed the highest bond strength.

Resin microtensile bond strength to feldspathic ceramic: Hydrofluoric acid etching vs tribochemical silica coating

This study aimed to compare the microtensile bond strength of resin cement to alumina-reinforced feldspathic ceramic submitted to acid etching or chairside tribochemical silica coating. Ten blocks of Vitadur-α were randomly divided into 2 groups according to conditioning method: (1) etching with 9.6% hydrofluoric acid or (2) chairside tribochemical silica coating. Each ceramic block was luted to the corresponding resin composite block with the resin cement (Panavia F). Next, bar specimens were produced for microtensile testing. No significant difference was observed between the 2 experimental groups (Student t test, P> .05). Both surface treatments showed similar microtensile bond strength values.

The effect of different light-curing units on tensile strength and microhardness of a composite resin

The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of different light-curing units on the tensile bond strength and microhardness of a composite resin (Filtek Z250 - 3M/ESPE). Conventional halogen (Curing Light 2500 - 3M/ESPE; CL) and two blue light emitting diode curing units (Ultraled - Dabi/Atlante; UL; Ultrablue IS - DMC; UB3 and UB6) were selected for this study. Different light intensities (670, 130, 300, and 600 mW/cm2, respectively) and different curing times (20s, 40s and 60s) were evaluated. Knoop microhardness test was performed in the area corresponding to the fractured region of the specimen. A total of 12 groups (n=10) were established and the specimens were prepared using a stainless steel mold composed by two similar parts that contained a cone-shaped hole with two diameters (8.0 mm and 5.0 mm) and thickness of 1.0 mm. Next, the specimens were loaded in tensile strength until fracture in a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min and a 50 kg load cell. For the microhardness test, the same matrix was used to fabricate the specimens (12 groups; n=5). Microhardness was determined on the surfaces that were not exposed to the light source, using a Shimadzu HMV-2 Microhardness Tester at a static load of 50 g for 30 seconds. Data were analyzed statistically by two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (p<0.05). Regarding the individual performance of the light-curing units, there was similarity in tensile strength with 20-s and 40-s exposure times and higher tensile strength when a 60-s light-activation time was used. Regarding microhardness, the halogen lamp had higher results when compared to the LED units. For all light-curing units, the variation of light-exposure time did not affect composite microhardness. However, lower irradiances needed longer light-activation times to produce similar effect as that obtained with high-irradiance light-curing sources.