Search

Purpose: To compare different dental bonding systems that are currently available on the market., Materials and Methods: A total of 100 extracted, intact third molars were coated in resin, cut, and divided into 10 groups of 10 molars each. Molars were bonded to zirconia blocks with a different bonding system per group. Resistance to shear forces was tested using a universal traction machine. Samples were observed under scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to determine the type of fracture., Results: Statistical analyses showed a significant influence of adhesive on the zirconia-dentin assembly's resistance to shear forces. SEM analysis showed mainly adhesive and mixed fractures., Conclusion: Dentin bonding systems without adhesive capability showed better results than self-etch systems.

Aim: To compare the shear bond strength and microleakage of four adhesive systems to the enamel and dentine of primary bovine teeth., Methods: 120 bovine primary mandibular incisors were collected and stored in an aqueous 1% chloramine solution at room temperature for no longer than 3 months after extraction (80 for shear bond testing and 40 for microleakage evaluation). The adhesives tested were Clearfil SE bond (SE), Adper Prompt L Pop (LP), Xeno III (XE), and Prime and Bond NT (PB). For shear bond strength testing the specimens were wet ground to 600 grit SiC paper to expose a flat enamel or dentine surface. After bonding and restoration with Dyract AP (DAP), the teeth were subjected to shear stress using a universal testing machine. For microleakage evaluation, facial class V cavities were prepared half in enamel and half in cementum. All cavities were restored with DAP. After thermocycling and immersion in 2% methylene blue, the dye penetration was evaluated under a stereomicroscope., Statistics: All data were analysed by Chi-square tests or Fisher's tests when adapted in order to determine the significant differences between groups. Results were considered as significant for p < 0.05. Results were analysed with an ANOVA test and a Bonferroni's multiple comparison. The level of significance was p < 0.05., Results: Shear bond strength values (MPa,) ranged from: on enamel 11.06 to 5.34, in decreasing order SE, LP, XE and PB and on dentine 10.47 to 4.74, in decreasing order SE, XE, LP and PB. Differences in bond strengths between the four systems on enamel and dentine were all statistically significant, excepted for XE vs LP (shear bond at dentine). No significant differences were recorded in the microleakage degree between the four adhesive systems on enamel and on dentine (p > 0.0.5)., Conclusions: The highest shear bond strength was achieved by Clearfil SE bond and the lowest by Prime and Bond NT. There was no significant difference concerning the sealing ability of the four adhesive systems.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the shear and tensile bond strengths of eight adhesive systems to the enamel and dentine of primary bovine teeth., Methods: Two hundred and fifty-six noncarious bovine mandibular primary incisors were collected and stored in an aqueous 1% chloramine solution at room temperature for no longer than 3 months after extraction. The tested adhesives were: Clearfil SE bond (SE); Adper Prompt L Pop (LP); Optibond Solo Plus Self-etch (OB); AdheSE (AS); Xeno III (XE); Scotch Bond 1 (SB); Etch & Prime 3.0 (EP); and I Bond (IB). For the shear bonding test and the tensile bonding test, the labial surfaces of primary incisors were used. To obtain a flat surface, the labial surfaces of the teeth were sanded on wet silicon carbide paper, first with number 200 grit for 20 s and then with number 600 grit for 60 s (n = 128; 64 for shear bonding and 64 for tensile bonding). The results were compared with an analysis of variance and Bonferroni's multiple comparison test., Results: Shear bond strength values ranged from 18.1 to 8.9 MPa on enamel (in decreasing order, SE, LP, OB, AS, XE, SB, EP and IB), and from 17.8 to 8.2 MPa on dentine (in decreasing order, SE, SB, OB, AS, XE, LP, IB and EP). Tensile bond strength values ranged from 13.1 to 6.7 MPa on enamel (in decreasing order, SE, OB, AS, LP, XE, IB, SB and EP), and from 12.1 to 5.7 MPa on dentine (in deceasing order, SE, SB, OB, AS, XE, LP, IB and EP). The differences in bond strengths between the eight systems on enamel and dentine were all statistically significant. This was true for both the shear and tensile bond strengths., Conclusions: The highest shear bond strength was achieved by SE on enamel and dentine, and the lowest by IB on enamel and EP on dentine. The highest tensile bond strength was obtained by SE on enamel and dentine, and the lowest by EP. Shear bond strengths were significantly higher on enamel when compared to dentine for five of the eight adhesives systems, and tensile bond strengths were significantly higher on enamel when compared to dentine for all but two systems.

Purpose: This study evaluated the sealing ability of different types of restorative-adhesive combinations on deciduous molars in vitro., Methods: Facial and lingual Class V cavities were prepared in 120 primary teeth. They were randomly divided into 8 groups of N= 15, in which different adhesives were used (XE=Xeno III; LP=Adper Prompt L Pop; IB=I Bond; SB=Scotch Bond 1; EP=Etch & Prime 3.0; AS=AdheSE; OB=Optibond Solo plus self-etch primer; CS=Clearfil SE Bond). All cavities were restored with composite Z 250. After thermocycling and immersion in 2% methylene blue, the dye penetration was evaluated under a microscope., Results: In enamel and in cementum: the best seals were obtained with XE and LP, followed by CS, AS, IB, OB, SB, and EP (P=.001). No significant differences were recorded in the microleakage degree between the cementum and the enamel margins (P=.40)., Conclusions: In this in vitro model, Xeno III and Adper Prompt L Pop provided the best seals both at the enamel and the cementum margins of Class V cavities in primary molars.