In vitro comparison of bonding effectiveness of different adhesive strategies.

Daniele Scaminaci Russo, Felicita Pierleoni, Jacopo Buti, Marco Ferrari, Luca Giachetti

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    Abstract

    ABSTRACT: Purpose: To compare the bond strength to human dentin for a variety of adhesive materials, including self-adhesive resin composites, self-etch and etch-and-rinse adhesive systems and glass-ionomer cement by means of micro shear bond strength (μSBS) test and SEM observations. METHODS: Seventy-two human molars were sectioned to obtain a 2 mm-thick slab of mid-coronal dentin and were subsequently randomly divided into nine groups (n = 8). Nine conical frustum-shaped build-ups were constructed on the occlusal surface of each dentin slab using bonding agents (Group 1: OptiBond FL; Group 2: OptiBond XTR) combined with a resin composite (Premise Flow), self-adhesive resin composites (Group 3: RelyX Unicem; Group 4: RelyX Unicem 2; Group 5: SmartCem2; Group 6: SpeedCEM; Group 7: Maxcem Elite; Group 8: Vertise Flow) and a glass-ionomer cement (Group 9: Ketac-Fil). Specimens were subjected to μSBS test and observed with SEM. Data were analyzed by a mixed model and chi-square test. RESULTS: The bond strengths measured in Groups 3-9 were significantly lower than those recorded in Groups 1 and 2. There were no significant differences in bond strengths between Groups 1 and 2 or between Groups 4 through 8. The bond strength measured in Group 9 was significantly lower than those recorded in Groups 4, 5, and 6 but was not significantly different than those recorded in Groups 3, 7, and 8. Failures were mainly adhesive in all groups.
    Original languageEnglish
    JournalAmerican journal of dentistry
    Volume27
    Issue number6
    Publication statusPublished - Dec 2014

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'In vitro comparison of bonding effectiveness of different adhesive strategies.'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this