PURPOSE: To determine the difference in microtensile bond strengths (MTBS) of resin-based composite bonded to the enamel of cavity preparations using a conventional or a self-etching adhesive. METHODS: Buccal and lingual Class V cavities were prepared in each of 12 caries-free human molars. Six teeth were randomly selected to be restored with Spectrum TPH resin-based composite and Prime & Bond NT adhesive. The remaining six teeth were restored with the same composite and Prompt L-Pop self-etching adhesive. Enamel/composite sticks were cut from each specimen and subjected to microtensile bond testing. Each debonded specimen was evaluated by SEM to determine the mode of failure. RESULTS: The mean MTBS for Prime & Bond NT specimens was 15.2+/-13.1 MPa. The mean MTBS for Prompt L-Pop self-etching adhesive samples was 18.2+/-14.3 MPa. ANOVA demonstrated no statistically significant difference between the mean MTBS associated with the two adhesives (P> 0.05). The results of SEM analysis revealed that the bonding failures occurred primarily at the interface between the adhesive and the enamel, suggesting a primarily adhesive failure.
PURPOSE: To determine the difference in microtensile bond strengths (MTBS) of resin-based composite bonded to the enamel of cavity preparations using a conventional or a self-etching adhesive. METHODS: Buccal and lingual Class V cavities were prepared in each of 12 caries-free human molars. Six teeth were randomly selected to be restored with Spectrum TPH resin-based composite and Prime & Bond NT adhesive. The remaining six teeth were restored with the same composite and Prompt L-Pop self-etching adhesive. Enamel/composite sticks were cut from each specimen and subjected to microtensile bond testing. Each debonded specimen was evaluated by SEM to determine the mode of failure. RESULTS: The mean MTBS for Prime & Bond NT specimens was 15.2+/-13.1 MPa. The mean MTBS for Prompt L-Pop self-etching adhesive samples was 18.2+/-14.3 MPa. ANOVA demonstrated no statistically significant difference between the mean MTBS associated with the two adhesives (P> 0.05). The results of SEM analysis revealed that the bonding failures occurred primarily at the interface between the adhesive and the enamel, suggesting a primarily adhesive failure.