Abstract
Objectives: To investigate the bond strength and fracture characteristics of various dentine bonding agents (DBAs) on wet or dry enamel. Methods: Forty molar halves with enamel flattened were divided into 5 groups. Groups 1-4, teeth were acid-etched and treated separately with either an ethanol-based adhesive (SingleBond) or an acetone-based adhesive (Prime & Bond NT) on dry or wet enamel. Group 5 was treated with a self-etching adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond). The treated enamel surfaces were bonded with Z 250 composite with metal rings. The composite-ring assemblies were subjected to shear bond test until failure. Failure patterns on the debonded surfaces were inspected under a scanning electron microscope. The bonded enamel thickness was measured on sectioned specimens to investigate their statistical evidence. Results of open margin and enamel microcrack ratios from Part I of this study were compared with these fracture characteristics. Data was analyzed statistically. Results: There was no difference in the bond strength between paired groups using the same DBA on wet or dry enamel. The teeth restored with self-etching adhesive exhibited lower bond strength and higher adhesive-enamel failure rate than the other groups. No correlation between enamel thickness, microcrack, bond strength, and failure patterns was revealed. Conclusion: The self-etching adhesive had a lower enamel bond strength than the other bonding systems. The difference in the failure patterns of groups with ethanol- and acetone-based DBAs on wet or dry enamel was indistinct. The frequently observed enamel microcrack cannot be directly correlated with the bond strength of bonding systems.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 352-361 |
| Number of pages | 10 |
| Journal | Journal of Dentistry |
| Volume | 34 |
| Issue number | 5 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2006 May 1 |
Fingerprint
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Dentistry(all)
Cite this
}
Influence of enamel wetness on composite restorations using various dentine bonding agents : Part II-effects on shear bond strength. / Chuang, Shu-Fen; Chang, Li Tung; Chang, Chih-Han; Yaman, Peter; Liu, Jia-Kuang.
In: Journal of Dentistry, Vol. 34, No. 5, 01.05.2006, p. 352-361.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
TY - JOUR
T1 - Influence of enamel wetness on composite restorations using various dentine bonding agents
T2 - Part II-effects on shear bond strength
AU - Chuang, Shu-Fen
AU - Chang, Li Tung
AU - Chang, Chih-Han
AU - Yaman, Peter
AU - Liu, Jia-Kuang
PY - 2006/5/1
Y1 - 2006/5/1
N2 - Objectives: To investigate the bond strength and fracture characteristics of various dentine bonding agents (DBAs) on wet or dry enamel. Methods: Forty molar halves with enamel flattened were divided into 5 groups. Groups 1-4, teeth were acid-etched and treated separately with either an ethanol-based adhesive (SingleBond) or an acetone-based adhesive (Prime & Bond NT) on dry or wet enamel. Group 5 was treated with a self-etching adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond). The treated enamel surfaces were bonded with Z 250 composite with metal rings. The composite-ring assemblies were subjected to shear bond test until failure. Failure patterns on the debonded surfaces were inspected under a scanning electron microscope. The bonded enamel thickness was measured on sectioned specimens to investigate their statistical evidence. Results of open margin and enamel microcrack ratios from Part I of this study were compared with these fracture characteristics. Data was analyzed statistically. Results: There was no difference in the bond strength between paired groups using the same DBA on wet or dry enamel. The teeth restored with self-etching adhesive exhibited lower bond strength and higher adhesive-enamel failure rate than the other groups. No correlation between enamel thickness, microcrack, bond strength, and failure patterns was revealed. Conclusion: The self-etching adhesive had a lower enamel bond strength than the other bonding systems. The difference in the failure patterns of groups with ethanol- and acetone-based DBAs on wet or dry enamel was indistinct. The frequently observed enamel microcrack cannot be directly correlated with the bond strength of bonding systems.
AB - Objectives: To investigate the bond strength and fracture characteristics of various dentine bonding agents (DBAs) on wet or dry enamel. Methods: Forty molar halves with enamel flattened were divided into 5 groups. Groups 1-4, teeth were acid-etched and treated separately with either an ethanol-based adhesive (SingleBond) or an acetone-based adhesive (Prime & Bond NT) on dry or wet enamel. Group 5 was treated with a self-etching adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond). The treated enamel surfaces were bonded with Z 250 composite with metal rings. The composite-ring assemblies were subjected to shear bond test until failure. Failure patterns on the debonded surfaces were inspected under a scanning electron microscope. The bonded enamel thickness was measured on sectioned specimens to investigate their statistical evidence. Results of open margin and enamel microcrack ratios from Part I of this study were compared with these fracture characteristics. Data was analyzed statistically. Results: There was no difference in the bond strength between paired groups using the same DBA on wet or dry enamel. The teeth restored with self-etching adhesive exhibited lower bond strength and higher adhesive-enamel failure rate than the other groups. No correlation between enamel thickness, microcrack, bond strength, and failure patterns was revealed. Conclusion: The self-etching adhesive had a lower enamel bond strength than the other bonding systems. The difference in the failure patterns of groups with ethanol- and acetone-based DBAs on wet or dry enamel was indistinct. The frequently observed enamel microcrack cannot be directly correlated with the bond strength of bonding systems.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33646498989&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33646498989&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jdent.2005.08.001
DO - 10.1016/j.jdent.2005.08.001
M3 - Article
C2 - 16171924
AN - SCOPUS:33646498989
VL - 34
SP - 352
EP - 361
JO - Journal of Dentistry
JF - Journal of Dentistry
SN - 0300-5712
IS - 5
ER -