Influence of different adhesive systems on the pull-out bond strength of glass fiber posts

This in vitro study evaluated the tensile bond strength of glass fiber posts (Reforpost - Angelus-Brazil) cemented to root dentin with a resin cement (RelyX ARC - 3M/ESPE) associated with two different adhesive systems (Adper Single Bond - 3M/ESPE and Adper Scotchbond Multi Purpose (MP) Plus - 3M/ESPE), using the pull-out test. Twenty single-rooted human teeth with standardized root canals were randomly assigned to 2 groups (n=10): G1- etching with 37% phosphoric acid gel (3M/ESPE) + Adper Single Bond + #1 post (Reforpost - Angelus) + four #1 accessory posts (Reforpin - Angelus) + resin cement; G2- etching with 37% phosphoric acid gel + Adper Scotchbond MP Plus + #1 post + four #1 accessory posts + resin cement. The specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 7 days and submitted to the pull-out test in a universal testing machine (EMIC) at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The mean values of bond strength (kgf) and standard deviation were: G1- 29.163 ± 7.123; G2- 37.752 ±13.054. Statistical analysis (Student's t-test; a=0.05 showed no statistically significant difference (p<0.05) between the groups. Adhesive bonding failures between resin cement and root canal dentin surface were observed in both groups, with non-polymerized resin cement in the apical portion of the post space when Single Bond was used (G1). The type of adhesive system employed on the fiber post cementation did not influence the pull-out bond strength.

Bonding agent underneath sealant: shear bond strength to oil-contaminated

This study evaluated in vitro the shear bond strength of a resin-based pit-and-fissure sealant (Fluroshield - F) associated with either an ethanol-based (Adper Single Bond 2 - SB) or an acetone-based (Prime & Bond - PB) adhesive system under conditions of oil contamination. Mesial and distal enamel surfaces from 30 sound third molars were randomly assigned to 2 groups (n=30): I - no oil contamination; II - oil contamination. Contamination (0.25 mL during 10 s) was performed after 37% phosphoric acid etching with an air/oil spray. The specimens were randomly assigned to subgroups, according to the bonding protocol adopted: subgroup A - F was applied to enamel without an intermediate bonding agent layer; In subgroups B and C, SB and PB, respectively, were applied, light-cured, and then F was applied and light-cured. Shear bond strength was tested at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min in a universal testing machine. Means (± SD) in MPa were: IA-11.28 (±1.84); IIA-12.02 (±1.15); IB-9.73 (±2.38); IIB-9.62 (±2.29); IC-28.30 (±1.63); and IIC-25.50 (±1.91). It may be concluded that the oil contamination affected negatively the sealant bonding to enamel and the acetone-based adhesive system (PB) layer applied underneath the sealant was able to prevent its deleterious effects to adhesion.

Shear bond strength of self-etch and total-etch bonding systems at different dentin depths

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the dentin shear bond strength of four adhesive systems (Adper Single Bond 2, Adper Prompt L-Pop, Magic Bond DE and Self Etch Bond) in regards to buccal and lingual surfaces and dentin depth. Forty extracted third molars had roots removed and crowns bisected in the mesiodistal direction. The buccal and lingual surfaces were fixed in a PVC/acrylic resin ring and were divided into buccal and lingual groups assigned to each selected adhesive. The same specimens prepared for the evaluation of superficial dentin shear resistance were used to evaluate the different depths of dentin. The specimens were identified and abraded at depths of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 mm. Each depth was evaluated by ISO TR 11405 using an EMIC-2000 machine regulated at 0.5 mm/min with a 200 Kgf load cell. We performed statistical analyses on the results (ANOVA, Tukey and Scheffé tests). Data revealed statistical differences (p < 0.01) in the adhesive and depth variation as well as adhesive/depth interactions. The Adper Single Bond 2 demonstrated the highest mean values of shear bond strength. The Prompt L-Pop product, a self-etching adhesive, revealed higher mean values compared with Magic Bond DE and Self Etch Bond adhesives, a total and self-etching adhesive respectively. It may be concluded that the shear bond strength of dentin is dependent on material (adhesive system), substrate depth and adhesive/depth interaction.

Bond strength of a pit-and-fissure sealant associated to etch-and-rinse and self-etching adhesive systems to saliva-contaminated enamel: individual vs. simultaneous light curing

This study evaluated in vitro the shear bond strength (SBS) of a resin-based pit-and-fissure sealant [Fluroshield (F), Dentsply/Caulk] associated with either an etch-and-rinse [Adper Single Bond 2 (SB), 3M/ESPE] or a self-etching adhesive system [Clearfil S3 Bond (S3), Kuraray Co., Ltd.] to saliva-contaminated enamel, comparing two curing protocols: individual light curing of the adhesive system and the sealant or simultaneous curing of both materials. Mesial and distal enamel surfaces from 45 sound third molars were randomly assigned to 6 groups (n=15), according to the bonding technique: I - F was applied to 37% phosphoric acid etched enamel. The other groups were contaminated with fresh human saliva (0.01 mL; 10 s) after acid etching: II - SB and F were light cured separately; III - SB and F were light cured together; IV - S3 and F were light cured separately; V - S3 and F were light cured simultaneously; VI - F was applied to saliva-contaminated, acid-etched enamel without an intermediate bonding agent layer. SBS was tested to failure in a universal testing machine at 0.5 mm/min. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Fisher's test (α=0.05).The debonded specimens were examined with a stereomicroscope to assess the failure modes. Three representative specimens from each group were observed under scanning electron microscopy for a qualitative analysis. Mean SBS in MPa were: I-12.28 (±4.29); II-8.57 (±3.19); III-7.97 (±2.16); IV-12.56 (±3.11); V-11.45 (±3.77); and VI-7.47 (±1.99). In conclusion, individual or simultaneous curing of the intermediate bonding agent layer and the resin sealant did not seem to affect bond strength to saliva-contaminated enamel. S3/F presented significantly higher SBS than the that of the groups treated with SB etch-and-rinse adhesive system and similar SBS to that of the control group, in which the sealant was applied under ideal dry, noncontaminated conditions.

Influence of intrapulpal pressure simulation on the bond strength of adhesive systems to dentin

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of intrapulpal pressure simulation on the bonding effectiveness of etch & rinse and self-etch adhesives to dentin. Eighty sound human molars were distributed into eight groups, according to the permeability level of each sample, measured by an apparatus to assess hydraulic conductance (Lp). Thus, a similar mean permeability was achieved in each group. Three etch & rinse adhesives (Prime & Bond NT - PB, Single Bond -SB, and Excite - EX) and one self-etch system (Clearfil SE Bond - SE) were employed, varying the presence or absence of an intrapulpal pressure (IPP) simulation of 15 cmH2O. After adhesive and restorative procedures were carried out, the samples were stored in distilled water for 24 hours at 37°C, and taken for tensile bond strength (TBS) testing. Fracture analysis was performed using a light microscope at 40 X magnification. The data, obtained in MPa, were then submitted to the Kruskal-Wallis test ( a = 0.05). The results revealed that the TBS of SB and EX was significantly reduced under IPP simulation, differing from the TBS of PB and SE. Moreover, SE obtained the highest bond strength values in the presence of IPP. It could be concluded that IPP simulation can influence the bond strength of certain adhesive systems to dentin and should be considered when in vitro studies are conducted.

Evaluating resin-enamel bonds by microshear and microtensile bond strength tests: effects of composite resin

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to evaluate the effect of resin composite (Filtek Z250 and Filtek Flow Z350) and adhesive system [(Solobond Plus, Futurabond NR (VOCO) and Adper Single Bond (3M ESPE)] on the microtensile (μTBS) and microshear bond strength (μSBS) tests on enamel, and to correlate the bond strength means between them. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty-six extracted human molars were sectioned to obtain two tooth halves: one for μTBS and the other one for μSBS. Adhesive systems and resin composites were applied to the enamel ground surfaces and light-cured. After storage (37(0)C/24 h) specimens were stressed (0.5 mm/min). Fracture modes were analyzed under scanning electron microscopy. The data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α=0.05). RESULTS: The correlation between tests was estimated with Pearson's product-moment correlation statistics (α =0.05). For both tests only the main factor resin composite was statistically significant (p<0.05). The correlation test detected a positive (r=0.91) and significant (p=0.01) correlation between the tests. CONCLUSIONS: The results were more influenced by the resin type than by the adhesives. Both microbond tests seem to be positive and linearly correlated and can therefore lead to similar conclusions.

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.

The Importance of Adhesive Area Delimitation in a Microshear Bond Strength Experimental Design

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the influence of adhesive area delimitation on the microshear bond strength of different adhesives to dentin. Materials and Methods: Eighteen bovine incisors were sectioned and the exposed dentin surfaces were prepared with 600-grit SIC paper. These teeth were randomly divided into three groups, according to the adhesive to be applied: two-step etch-and-rinse Adper Single Bond 2 (3M ESPE), two-step self-etching Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray), and one-step Clearfil S(3) Bond (Kuraray). On each dentin surface, 4 samples were built up with the composite resin Z100 (3M ESPE); on 2 of these, a suggested area delimitation technique was employed. After 24 h of storage in water at 37 degrees C, samples were subjected to the microshear bond strength test, and the failure modes were evaluated under optical and scanning electron microscopes. The obtained results were statistical analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey`s test. Results: Groups without area delimitation presented significantly higher bond strength results (p < 0.05) and a higher incidence of cohesive failures. In these groups, fractures tended to occur beyond the limits of the actual adhesive area, while the area restriction technique succeeded in avoiding this phenomenon. The three adhesives performed similarly when area delimitation was employed (p > 0.05), but Clearfil S(3) Bond showed significantly higher bond strength results when no area delimitation was taken into account (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The extension of the adhesive area beyond the limits of the composite cylinder may play an important role in the results of microshear bond strength tests, while the suggested area delimitation technique may lead to less questionable outcomes.

Influence of oil contamination on in vitro bond strength of bonding agents to dental substrates

Purpose: To evaluate the influence of cleaning procedures (pumice, anionic detergent and both procedures together) on the tensile bond strength of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesive systems to bovine enamel and dentin in vitro. Methods: Eighty non-carious, bovine incisors were extracted, embedded in acrylic resin to obtain enamel/dentin specimens. Flat bonding surfaces were obtained by grinding. Groups were divided according to substrate (enamel or dentin), adhesive system [etch-and-rinse, Adper Single Bond 2 (SB) or self-etch, Clearfil Protect Bond (PB)]; and cleaning substances (pumice, anionic detergent and their combination). The teeth were randomly divided into 20 groups (n=8): G1 - Enamel (E) + SB; G2 -E + oil (O) + SB; G3 - E + O + Pumice (P) + SB; G4 - E + O + Tergentol (T) + SB; G5 - E + O + P + T + SB; G6 - E + PB; G7 - E + O + PB; G8 - E + O + P + PB; G9 - E + O + T + PB; GIO - E + O + P + T + PB; G11 - Dentin (D) + SB; G12 D + SB + O; G13 - D + SB + O + P; G14 - D + SB + O + T; G15 - D + SB + O + P + T; G16 - D + PB; G17 - D + O + PB +; G18 - D + O + P + PB; G19 - D + O + T + PB; G20 - D + O + P + T + PB. Specimens were contaminated with handpiece oil for 5 seconds before bonding. Adhesive systems and resin composite were applied according to manufacturers` instructions. Specimens were tested in tension after 24 hours of immersion using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/minute. Bond strengths were analyzed with ANOVA. Failure sites were observed and recorded. Results: Tensile bond strength in MPa were: G1 (23.6 +/- 0.9); G2 (17.3 +/- 2.2); G3 (20.9 +/- 0.9); G4 (20.6 +/- 0.5); G5 (18.7 +/- 2.3); G6 (23.0 +/- 1.0); G7 (21.5 +/- 2.4); G8 (19.9 +/- 1.3); G9 (22.1 +/- 1.2); G10 (19.1 +/- 1.2); G11 (18.8 +/- 1.3); G12 (15.7 +/- 2.1); G13 (17.8 +/- 3.3); G14 (15.3 +/- 2.9); G15 (15.6 +/- 1.9); G16 (14.7 +/- 2.3); G17 (5.5 +/- 0.9); G18 (19.3 +/- 1.8); G19 (15.6 +/- 1.6); G20 (20.3 +/- 3.9). Statistical analysis showed that the main factors substrate and cleaning were statistically significant, as well as the triple interaction between factors of variance. However, the factor adhesive system did not show statistical difference. Oil contamination reduced bond strengths, being less detrimental to enamel than to dentin. Etch-and-rinse (SB) and two-step self-etch (PB) systems had similar bond strengths in the presence of oil contamination. For etch-and-rinse (SB), the cleaning procedures were able to clean enamel, but dentin was better cleaned by pumice. When self-etch (PB) system was used on enamel, anionic detergent was the best cleaning substance, while on dentin the tested procedures were similarly efficient.

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

Direct comparison of the bond strength results of the different test methods: A critical literature review

Objective. The goal of this paper is to undertake a literature search collecting all dentin bond strength data obtained for six adhesives with four tests ( shear, microshear, tensile and microtensile) and to critically analyze the results with respect to average bond strength, coefficient of variation, mode of failure and product ranking. Method. A PubMed search was carried out for the years between 1998 and 2009 identifying publications on bond strength measurements of resin composite to dentin using four tests: shear, tensile, microshear and microtensile. The six adhesive resins were selected covering three step systems ( OptiBond FL, Scotch Bond Multi-Purpose Plus), two-step (Prime & Bond NT, Single Bond, Clear. l SE Bond) and one step (Adper Prompt L Pop). Results. Pooling results from 147 references showed an ongoing high scatter in the bond strength data regardless which adhesive and which bond test was used. Coefficients of variation remained high (20-50%) even with the microbond test. The reported modes of failure for all tests still included high number of cohesive failures. The ranking seemed to be dependant on the test used. Significance. The scatter in dentin bond strength data remains regardless which test is used confirming Finite Element Analysis predicting non-uniform stress distributions due to a number of geometrical, loading, material properties and specimens preparation variables. This reopens the question whether, an interfacial fracture mechanics approach to analyze the dentin - adhesive bond is not more appropriate for obtaining better agreement among dentin bond related papers. (C) 2009 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Influence of differently oriented dentin surfaces and the regional variation of specimens on adhesive layer thickness and bond strength

Statement of the Problem: Adhesive systems can spread differently onto a substrate and, consequently, influence bonding. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of differently oriented dentin surfaces and the regional variation of specimens on adhesive layer thickness and microtensile bond strength (MTBS). Materials and Methods: Twenty-four molars were sectioned mesiodistally to expose flat buccal and lingual halves. Standardized drop volumes of adhesive systems (Single Bond [SB] and Prime & Bond 2.1 [PB2.1]) were applied to dentin according to the manufacturer`s instructions. Teeth halves were randomly divided into groups: 1A-SB/parallel to gravity; 1B-SB/perpendicular to gravity; 2A-PB2.1/parallel to gravity; and 2B-PB2.1/perpendicular to gravity. The bonded assemblies were stored in 37 degrees C distilled water for 24 hours and then sectioned to obtain dentin sticks (0.8 mm(2)). The adhesive layer thickness was determined in a light microscope (x200), and after 48 hours the specimens were subjected to MTBS test. Data were analyzed by one-way and two-way analysis of variance and Student-Newman-Keuls tests. Results: Mean values (MPa +/- SD) of MTBS were: 39.1 +/- 12.9 (1A); 32.9 +/- 12.4 (1B); 52.9 +/- 15.2 (2A); and 52.3 +/- 16.5 (2B). The adhesive systems` thicknesses (mu m +/- SD) were: 11.2 +/- 2.9 (1A); 18.1 +/- 7.3 (1B); 4.2 +/- 1.8 (2A); and 3.9 +/- 1.3 (2B). No correlation between bond strength and adhesive layer thickness for both SB and PB2.1 (r = -0.224, p = 0.112 and r = 0.099, p = 0.491, respectively) was observed. Conclusions: The differently oriented dentin surfaces and the regional variation of specimens on the adhesive layer thickness are material-dependent. These variables do not influence the adhesive systems` bond strength to dentin. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE Adhesive systems have different viscosities and spread differently onto a substrate, influencing the bond strength and also the adhesive layer thickness. Adhesive thickness does not influence dentin bond strength, but it may impair adequate solvent evaporation, polymer conversion, and may also determine water sorption and adhesive degradation over time. In the literature, many studies have shown that the adhesive layer is a permeable membrane and can fail over timebecause ofits continuous plasticizing and degradation when in contact with water. Therefore, avoiding thick adhesive layers may minimize these problems and provide long-term success for adhesive restorations.

Effect of 2% Chlorhexidine Digluconate on the Bond Strength to Normal Versus Caries-affected Dentin

This study evaluated the effect of 2% chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX) used as a therapeutic primer on the long-term bond strengths of two etch-and-rinse adhesives to normal (ND) and caries-affected (CAD) dentin. Forty extracted human molars with coronal carious lesions, surrounded by normal dentin, were selected for this study. The flat surfaces of two types of dentin (ND and CAD) were prepared with a water-cooled high-speed diamond disc, then acidetched, rinsed and air-dried. In the control groups, the dentin was re-hydrated with distilled water, blot-dried and bonded with a three-step (Scotchbond Multi-Purpose-MP) or two-step (Single Bond 2-SB) etch-and-rinse adhesive. In the experimental groups, the dentin was rehydrated with 2% CHX (60 seconds), blot-dried and bonded with the same adhesives. Resin composite build-ups were made. The specimens were prepared for microtensile bond testing in accordance with the non-trimming technique, then tested either immediately or after six-months storage in artificial saliva. The data were analyzed by ANOVA/Bonferroni tests (alpha=0.05). CHX did not affect the immediate bond strength to ND or CAD (p>0.05). CHX treatment significantly lowered the loss of bond strength after six months as seen in the control bonds for ND (p<0.05), but it did not alter the bond strength of CAD (p>0.05). The application of NIP on CHX-treated ND or CAD produced bonds that did not change over six months of storage.

Influence of endodontic sealers on the bond strength of carbon fiber posts

Objective: The aim of this study was to verify the influence of endodontic sealers on the bond strength of an adhesive system and a resin cement used for carbon posts cementation. Methods: Thirty extracted human premolars were instrumented and randomly divided into three groups according to the tested sealer: EndoFill, Sealapex, or EndoREZ. Specimens were stored at 37 degrees C. After 48 h, half of specimens were prepared to receive the post and the others after 7 days. The posts were cemented with Adper Single Bond/Rely X ARC and stored in distilled water at 37 degrees C for 7 days. After this period, the specimens were sectioned in three slices (coronal, middle, and apical). The push-out test was performed in a universal machine and the debonded area was examined in a stereomicroscope. Results: Data were submitted ANOVA and Tukey test (alpha = 0.05). The EndoFill showed lower bond strength than other sealers (p < 0.01). The EndoREZ sealer was statistically greater than other groups for coronal and middle portions and similar for apical portion (P > 0.05). Coronal and middle portions showed the best results for all groups, mainly when the canal preparation was performed after 48 h (p < 0.01). Mixed failure occurs with more frequency (55.6%) followed by failure in adhesive-dentin interface (34.4%) and adhesive-post interface (10.0%). Conclusion: The use of EndoREZ sealer promoted higher bond strength in root coronal and middle portions when carbon post was fixed with a resin cement. (C) 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Shear Bond Strength and Ultrastructural Interface Analysis of Different Adhesive Systems to Bleached Dentin

Background: It remains unclear as to whether or not dental bleaching affects the bond strength of dentin/resin restoration. Purpose: To evaluated the bond strength of adhesive systems to dentin submitted to bleaching with 38% hydrogen peroxide (HP) activated by LED-laser and to assess the adhesive/dentin interfaces by means of SEM. Study design: Sixty fragments of dentin (25 mm(2)) were included and divided into two groups: bleached and unbleached. HP was applied for 20 s and photoactivated for 45 s. Groups were subdivided according to the adhesive systems (n = 10): (1) two-steps conventional system (Adper Single Bond), (2) two-steps self-etching system (Clearfil standard error (SE) Bond), and (3) one-step self-etching system (Prompt L-Pop). The specimens received the Z250 resin and, after 24 h, were submitted to the bond strength test. Additional 30 dentin fragments (n = 5) received the same surface treatments and were prepared for SEM. Data were analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey`s test (alpha = 0.05). Results: There was significant strength reduction in bleached group when compared to unbleached group (P < 0.05). Higher bond strength was observed for Prompt. Single Bond and Clearfil presented the smallest values when used in bleached dentin. SEM analysis of the unbleached specimens revealed long tags and uniform hybrid layer for all adhesives. In bleached dentin, Single Bond provided open tubules and with few tags, Clearfil determined the absence of tags and hybrid layer, and Prompt promoted a regular hybrid layer with some tags. Conclusions: Prompt promoted higher shear bond strength, regardless of the bleaching treatment and allowed the formation of a regular and fine hybrid layer with less deep tags, when compared to Single Bond and Clearfil. Microsc. Res. Tech. 74:244-250, 2011. (C) 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.