PURPOSE: To evaluate the technique sensitivity of four different adhesive systems using different air-blowing pressure. METHODS: Four adhesive systems were employed: Clearfil SE Bond [SE] (Kuraray, Japan), G-Bond [GB] (GC Corporation, Japan), Adper Prompt L-Pop [LP] (3M ESPE, USA) and an experimental adhesive, SSB-200 [SSB] (Kuraray, Japan). Twenty-four extracted molars were used. After grinding the coronal enamel surface, the teeth were divided into two equal groups. The first group's teeth were randomly assigned for bonding with the different adhesives using gentle air-blowing (g). For the teeth of the second group, the four adhesive systems were applied using strong air-blowing (s). After storage overnight in 37 degrees C water, the bonded specimens were sectioned into sticks (1 mm x 1 mm wide), which were subjected to microtensile bond strength testing (microTBS) at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The load at failure of each specimen was recorded and the data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests. The surfaces of the fractured specimens were observed using SEM to determine the failure mode. RESULTS: The results of the microTBS test showed that the highest bond strengths tended to be with SE for both gentle and strong air-blowing, and the significantly lowest for SSB with strong air streaming. Comparing the two techniques, significant differences were noted only for SSB-200 (P < 0.05). For each material, the SEM evaluation did not show distinct differences in the nature of the fractures between the two techniques, except for SSB-200. CONCLUSIONS: The adhesives tested are not technique sensitive, except SSB-200, with regards to the air-blowing step.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To evaluate the technique sensitivity of four different adhesive systems using different air-blowing pressure. METHODS: Four adhesive systems were employed: Clearfil SE Bond [SE] (Kuraray, Japan), G-Bond [GB] (GC Corporation, Japan), Adper Prompt L-Pop [LP] (3M ESPE, USA) and an experimental adhesive, SSB-200 [SSB] (Kuraray, Japan). Twenty-four extracted molars were used. After grinding the coronal enamel surface, the teeth were divided into two equal groups. The first group's teeth were randomly assigned for bonding with the different adhesives using gentle air-blowing (g). For the teeth of the second group, the four adhesive systems were applied using strong air-blowing (s). After storage overnight in 37 degrees C water, the bonded specimens were sectioned into sticks (1 mm x 1 mm wide), which were subjected to microtensile bond strength testing (microTBS) at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The load at failure of each specimen was recorded and the data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests. The surfaces of the fractured specimens were observed using SEM to determine the failure mode. RESULTS: The results of the microTBS test showed that the highest bond strengths tended to be with SE for both gentle and strong air-blowing, and the significantly lowest for SSB with strong air streaming. Comparing the two techniques, significant differences were noted only for SSB-200 (P < 0.05). For each material, the SEM evaluation did not show distinct differences in the nature of the fractures between the two techniques, except for SSB-200. CONCLUSIONS: The adhesives tested are not technique sensitive, except SSB-200, with regards to the air-blowing step.