INFLUENCE of DIFFERENT SURFACE CONDITIONING PROTOCOLS on MICROTENSILE BOND STRENGTH of SELF-ADHESIVE RESIN CEMENTS TO DENTIN

Statement of problem. According to manufacturers, bonding with self-adhesive resin cements can be achieved without any pretreatment steps such as etching, priming, or bonding. However, the benefit of saving time with these simplified luting systems may be realized at the expense of compromising the bonding capacity.Purpose. The purpose of this study was to assess whether different dentin conditioning protocols influence the bond performance of self-adhesive resin cements to dentin.Material and methods. Flat dentin surfaces from 48 human molars were divided into 4 groups (n=12): 1) control, no conditioning; 2) H(3)PO(4), etching with 37% H(3)PO(4) for 15 seconds; 3) SEBond, bonding with self-etching primer adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond); and 4) EDTA, etching with 0.1M EDTA for 60 seconds. The specimens from each dentin pre-treatment were bonded using the self-adhesive cements RelyX Unicem, Maxcem or Multilink Sprint (n=4). The resin-cement-dentin specimens were stored in water at 37 degrees C for 7 days, and serially sectioned to produce beam specimens of 1.0 mm(2) cross-sectional area. Microtensile bond strength (mu TBS) testing was performed at 1.0 mm/min. Data (MPa) were analyzed by 2-way ANOVA and Tukey multiple comparisons test (alpha=.05). Fractured specimens were examined with a stereomicroscope (x40) and classified as adhesive, mixed, or cohesive. Additional bonded interfaces were evaluated under a scanning electron microscope (SEM).Results. Cement-dentin mu TBS was affected by the dentin conditioning approach (P <.001). RelyX Unicem attained statistically similar bond strengths to all pre-treated dentin surfaces. H(3)PO(4)-etching prior to the application of Maxcem resulted in bond strength values that were significantly higher than the other groups. The lowest mu TBS were attained when luting Multilink Sprint per manufacturers' recommendations, while H(3)PO(4)-etching produced the highest values followed by Clearfil SE bonding and EDTA. SEM observations disclosed an enhanced potential of the self-adhesive cements to form a hybrid layer when applied following manufacturer's instructions.Conclusions. When evaluated self-adhesive resin cements are used, selectively etching dentin with H(3)PO(4) prior to luting results in the most effective bonding. (J Prosthet Dent 2011;105:227-235)

Microshear Bond Strength of Self-etching Bonding Systems to Ultrasound Diamond Bur-prepared Dentin

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of dentin abrasion on the microshear bond strength of two self-etching adhesive systems, using either an ultrasound diamond bur or a high-speed diamond bur.Materials and Methods: Twenty noncarious human third molars were sectioned mesiodistally into halves. The enamel was ground to expose a flat dentin surface on both sections. The dentinal surfaces were randomly assigned to two groups, depending on the method of smear layer preparation: ultrasound diamond bur (UB) or conventional diamond bur (CB). The prepared dentin surfaces received one of two self-etching systems: Clearfil SE Bond (CF) and One-Up Bond F (OB). A composite cylinder with a 0.95-mm diameter was bonded to each specimen and the microshear bond test was performed. The results were expressed in MPa and were subjected to two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's test (alpha = 0.05).Results: There was no significant difference in dentin bond strength when comparing the conventional and ultrasonic abrasion methods. When the adhesive systems were compared, Clearfil SE Bond achieved higher bond strength means than did One-Up Bond F.Conclusion: The dentin surface preparation method did not influence the microshear bond strength and the Clearfil SE Bond adhesive system, independent of bur type used, Clearfil SE Bond showed higher bond strengths than did the One-Up Bond F adhesive system.

Bonding Efficacy of New Self-etching, Self-adhesive Dual-curing Resin Cements to Dental Enamel

Purpose: This study evaluated the efficacy of the union between two new self-etching self-adhesive resin cements and enamel using the microtensile bond strength test.Materials and Methods: Buccal enamel of 80 bovine teeth was submitted to finishing and polishing with metallographic paper to a refinement of #600, in order to obtain a 5-mm(2) flat area. Blocks (2 x 4 x 4 mm) of laboratory composite resin were cemented to enamel according to different protocols: (1) untreated enamel + RelyX Unicem cement (RX group); (2) untreated enamel + Bifix SE cement (BF group); (3) enamel acid etching and application of resin adhesive Single Bond + RelyX Unicem (RXA group); (4) enamel acid etching and application of resin adhesive Solobond M + Bifix SE (BFA group). After 7 days of storage in distillated water at 37 degrees C, the blocks were sectioned for obtaining microbar specimens with an adhesive area of 1 mm(2) (n = 120). Specimens were submitted to the microtensile bond strength test at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The results (in MPa) were analyzed statistically by ANOVA and Tu key's test.Results: Enamel pre-treatment with phosphoric acid and resin adhesive (27.9 and 30.3 for RXA and BFA groups) significantly improved (p <= 0.05) the adhesion of both cements to enamel compared to the union achieved with as-polished enamel (9.9 and 6.0 for RX and BF).Conclusion: Enamel pre-treatment with acid etching and the application of resin adhesive significantly improved the bond efficacy of both luting agents compared to the union achieved with as-polished enamel.

Durability of Microtensile Bond to Nonetched and Etched Feldspar Ceramic: Self-adhesive Resin Cements vs Conventional Resin

Purpose: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of thermocycling (TC), self-adhesive resin cements and surface conditioning on the microtensile bond strength (mu TBS) between feldspathic ceramic blocks and resin cements.Materials and Methods: Fifty-six feldspathic ceramic blocks (10 x 7 x 5 mm) (Vita Mark II) were divided into groups according to the factors "resin cement" (3 cements) and "surface conditioning" (no conditioning or conditioning [10% hydrofluoric acid etching for 5 min + silanization]) (n = 8): group 1: conditioning+Variolink II (control group); group 2: no conditioning+Biscem; group 3: no conditioning+RelyX U100; group 4: no conditioning+Maxcem Elite; group 5: conditioning+Biscem; group 6: conditioning+RelyX U100; group 7: conditioning+Maxcem Elite. The ceramic-cement blocks were sectioned to produce non-trimmed bar specimens (adhered cross-sectional area: 1 +/- 0.1 mm(2)), which were divided into two storage conditions: dry, mu TBS immediately after cutting; TC (12,000x, 5 degrees C/55 degrees C). Statistical significance was deterimined using two-way ANOVA (7 strategies and 2 storage conditions) and the post-hoc Tukey test (p<0.05).Results: Resin cement and thermocycling affected the mu TBS significantly (p = 0.001). In the dry condition, group 5 (18 +/- 6.5 MPa) presented the lowest values of mu TBS when compared to the other groups. TC decreased the mean mu TBS values significantly (p<0.05) for all resin cements tested (9.7 +/- 2.3 to 22.1 +/- 6.3 MPa), except for the resin cement RelyX U100 (22.1 +/- 6.3 MPa). In groups 3 and 4, it was not possible to measure mu TBS, since these groups had 100% pre-test failures during sectioning. Moreover, the same occurred in group 2 after TC, where 100% failure was observed during thermocycling (spontaneous failures).Conclusion: Hydrofluoric acid etching and silanization of the feldspathic ceramic surface are essential for bonding self-adhesive resin cement to a feldspathic ceramic, regardless of the resin cement used. Non-etched ceramic is not recommended.

Influence of Application Methods of Self-etching Adhesive Systems on Adhesive Bond Strength to Dentin

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Effects of Surface Hydration and Application Method on the Bond Strength of Self-Etching Adhesives to Dentin

The effect of application methods and dentin hydration on the bond strength of three self-etching adhesives (SEA) were evaluated; 195 extracted bovine incisors were used. The buccal surface was ground in order to expose the dentin, which remained 2-mm minimum thickness, measured by a thickness meter through an opening on the lingual surface. Adper Single Bond 2 (TM) was used for the control group. The SEA were applied following two modes of application: passive or active and two hydration states of the dentin surface-dry and wet. After light-curing, composite buildups were made using Grandio (TM) composite. The specimens were sectioned and tested with a microtensile bond strength test. The application method and the hydration state resulted in statistical differences (p = 0.000) making the values of active application for mu TBS to dentin higher than passive application. The wet surfaces showed higher mu TBS to dentin ratios than dry surfaces. There were no statistical differences in mu TBS among the SEA tested but there were differences regarding to control group.

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.

Microtensile bond strengths and scanning electron microscopic evaluation of self-adhesive and self-etch resin cements to intact and etched enamel

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

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).

Influence of Methods of Application of Self-etching Adhesive Systems on Adhesive Bond Strength to Enamel

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Evaluation of the shear bond strength of a composite resin in sound, demineralized and hypermineralized bovine dentin after irradiation with Er:YAG and Nd:YAG lasers, employing a self-etching adhesive system

Background and Objectives. The adhesion of dental materials is important for the success of treatment. The aim of this study is to evaluate the bond strength of a composite resin applied with a self-etching adhesive system in different dentins after irradiation with Er:YAG and Nd:YAG lasers, observing their morphologic pattern using Scanning Electronic Microscopy (SEM). Materials and Methods. The buccal surface of 72 bovine incisors was worn until exposure of medium depth dentin. The specimens were divided into three groups; GI: normal, GII: demineralized and GIII: hypermineralized dentin. These were also divided into two subgroups; A-irradiated for 30 s with Er:YAG laser in noncontact mode at 40 mJ and 6 Hz and B- irradiated for 30 s with Nd:YAG laser in contact mode at 60 mJ and 10 Hz. The adhesive system Clearfil SE. Bond (Kuraray) and composite resin Tetric Ceram (Vivadent) were applied on the irradiated area by the incremental technique. After storage for 24 h in distilled water at 37 degrees C, the specimens were submitted to the shear strength test in a universal testing machine (EMIC) at a crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/min. Other specimens were made to be analyzed by SEM. Results. The results were statistically analyzed by Analysis of Variance and the Tukey test. Regardless of the type of dentin, the bond strength of specimens irradiated with the Nd:YAG laser (8,94 +/- 2,07) was higher compared to specimens irradiated with the Er:YAG laser (7,03 +/- 2,47); the highest bond strength was obtained for the group of hypermineralized dentin irradiated with the Nd:YAG laser. The SEM analysis showed that the Er:YAG laser caused opening of tubules and the Nd:YAG laser produced areas of fusion as well as regions of opening of dentinal tubules. Conclusions. The dentin showed different morphological patterns and the laser promote alterations on their surfaces, influencing the bond strength of the composite resin. (C) 2010 Laser Institute of America.

Effects of Surface Hydration State and Application Method on the Bond Strength of Self-etching Adhesives to Cut Enamel

Purpose: To evaluate the effect of surface hydration state and application method on the microtensile bond strength of one-step self-etching adhesives systems to cut enamel.Materials and Methods: One hundred ninety-five bovine teeth were used. The enamel on the buccal side was flattened with 600-grit SiC paper. For the control group, 15 teeth received Adper Single Bond 2, applied according to manufacturer's recommendations. The other specimens were divided into three groups according to the adhesive system used: Futura Bond M (FM; Voco), Clearfil S-3 Bond (CS; Kuraray), and Optibond All in One (OA; Kerr). For each group, two hydration states were tested: D: blown dry with air; W: the excess of water was removed with absorbent paper. Two application methods were tested: P (passive): the adhesive was simply left on the surface; A (active): the adhesive was rubbed with an applicator point. A coat of Grandio composite resin (Voco) was applied on the surface. The teeth were sectioned to obtain enamel-resin sticks (1 x 1 mm), which underwent microtensile bond testing. The data in MPa were submitted to a three-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (alpha = 5%).Results: The ANOVA showed significant differences for application method and the type of adhesive, but not for hydration state. For the application method, the results of Tukey's test were: P: 31.46 (+/-7.09)a; A: 34.04 (+/-7.19)b. For the type of adhesive, the results were: OA: 31.29 (+/-7.05)a; CS: 32.28 (+/-7.14)a; FM: 34.68 (+/-7.17)b; different lower-case letters indicate statistically significant differences.Conclusion: Active application improved the bond strength to cut enamel. The adhesive Futurabond M showed the highest bond strength to cut enamel.

BOND STRENGTH DURABILITY of SELF-ETCHING ADHESIVES and RESIN CEMENTS TO DENTIN

Objectives: To evaluate the microtensile bond strength (mu TBS) of one-(Xeno III, Dentsply) and two-step (Tyrian-One Step Plus, Bisco) self-etching adhesive systems bonded to dentin and cemented to chemically cured (C&B Metabond) or light-cured paste of a dual-cure resin cement (Variolink II, Ivoclar) within a short (24 h) and long period of evaluation (90 days). Material and Methods: Forty recently extracted human molars had their roots removed and their occlusal dentin exposed and ground wet with 600-grit SiC paper. After application of one of the adhesives, the resin cement was applied to the bonded surface and a composite resin block was incrementally built up to a height of 5 mm (n = 10). The restored teeth were stored in distilled water at 37 C for 7 days. The teeth were then cut along two axes (x and y), producing beam-shaped specimens with 0.8 mm(2) cross-sectional area, which were subjected to mu TBS testing at a crosshead speed of 0.05 mm/min and stressed to failure after 24 h or 90 days of storage in water. The mu TBS data in MPa were subjected to three-way analysis of variance and Tukey's test (alpha = 0.05). Results: The interaction effect for all three factors was statistically significant (three-way ANOVA, p < 0.001). All eight experimental means (MPa) were compared by the Tukey's test (p < 0.05) and the following results were obtained: Tyrian-One Step Plus /C&B/24 h (22.4 +/- 7.3); Tyrian-One Step Plus /Variolink II/24 h (39.4 +/- 11.6); Xeno III/C&B/24 h (40.3 +/- 12.9); Xeno III/Variolink II/24 h (25.8 +/- 10.5); Tyrian-One Step Plus / C&B/90 d (22.1 +/- 12.8) Tyrian-One Step Plus/VariolinkII/90 d (24.2 +/- 14.2); Xeno III/C&B/90 d (27.0 +/- 13.5); Xeno III/Variolink II/90 d (33.0 +/- 8.9). Conclusions: Xeno III/Variolink II was the luting agent/adhesive combination that provided the most promising bond strength after 90 days of storage in water.

Energy-dependent point interaction: Self-adjointness

Recently, we constructed an energy-dependent point interaction (EDPI) in its most general form in one-dimensional quantum mechanics. In this paper, we show that stationary solutions of the Schrodinger equation with the EDPI form a complete set. Then any nonstationary solution of the time-dependent Schrodinger equation can be expressed as a linear combination of stationary solutions. This, however, does not necessarily mean that the EDPI is self-adjoint and the time-development of the nonstationary state is unitary. The EDPI is self-adjoint provided that the stationary solutions are all orthogonal to one another. We illustrate situations in which this orthogonality condition is not satisfied.

Duality between non-commutative Yang-Mills-Chem-Simons and non-Abelian self-dual models

By introducing an appropriate parent action and considering a perturbative approach, we establish, up to fourth order terms in the field and for the full range of the coupling constant, the equivalence between the non-commutative Yang-Mills-ChernSimons theory and the non-commutative, non-Abelian self-dual model. In doing this, we consider two different approaches by using both the Moyal star-product and the Seiberg-Witten map. (C) 2003 Elsevier B.V. B.V. All rights reserved.