 |
 |
 |
 |
In-Vitro Microtensile Bond Strength of Four Self-Etch Adhesives
J. PURK1, V. DUSEVICH1, A. GLAROS2, and J.D. EICK1, 1University of MissouriKansas City, USA, 2Kansas City University of Medicine and Biosciences, MO, USA | Objectives: The purpose of this in-vitro pilot study was to compare the dentin microtensile bond strength of four self-etch adhesive systems. Methods: After IRB approval, human 3rd molars were randomly distributed into four treatment groups: Clearfil-SE (two-step, water-based, Kuraray MedicalTM), An experimental Silorane adhesive (two-step, water-based, subsequently marketed as 3MTM ESPETM LS System Adhesive), AdperTM EasyBond (one-step, water-based, 3MTM ESPETM), and AdperTM ScotchbondTMSE (two-step, water-based, 3MTM ESPETM). Each tooth had its enamel removed using 60, 240 and 320 grit wet sandpaper until only dentin was visible. After adhesive placement 3MTM ESPETM FlitekTM Z250 Universal Restorative was applied/cured with a quartz halogen light in four 1.0 mm increments. Manufacturer's directions were followed. For the experimental adhesive a Silorane experimental resin composite was used instead (subsequently marketed as 3MTM ESPETM FiltekTM LS). Teeth were sectioned immediately after being restored to obtain rectangular specimens with a surface area ~0.5 mm2. Samples were tested on a Bisco Microtensile Tester until failure at a crosshead speed of 2.0 mm/min. Light Microscopy (10X) was used to characterize modes of failure as either adhesive or cohesive. Results: Material | N | Mean ± (Std Dev) in MPa | Cohesive Failures | Debonds during specimen preparation | Clearfil SE | 51 | 59.2 (15.0) | 21 | 0 | Experimental Silorane | 49 | 44.3 (9.9) | 4 | 0 | Adper Easy Bond | 49 | 52.8 (16.9) | 2 | 2 | Adper Scotchbond SE | 45 | 39.1 (17.2) | 0 | 13 |
One-way ANOVA found a statistically significant difference between adhesives (p≤ 0.001). Post-hoc testing using the Bonferroni procedure showed that both ClearFil-SE and AdperEasyBond had significantly (p<0.05) higher bond strengths than Adper ScotchbondSE and the experimental Silorane. Groups differed significantly in the number of debonds c2[3,N=15]=31.3, p≤0.001. Groups differed significantly in the number of cohesive failures c2[3,N=27]=41.3, p≤0.001. Conclusion: Clearfil-SE and AdperEasyBond outperformed the other adhesives in bond strength. Supported by USPHS Grant K23-DE016324. purkj@umkc.edu |
Seq #125 - Environment, Material, and Technique Impacts on Bond Strength 2:45 PM-3:45 PM, Friday, April 4, 2008 Hilton Anatole Hotel Trinity I - Exhibit Hall |
Back to the Dental Materials 1: Adhesion - Bond Strength Testing and Mechanisms Program
|
|