BACKGROUND: The authors compared the microtensile bond strength of teeth restored with four adhesives at the gingival and pulpal cavity walls of Class II resin-based composite restorations. METHODS: Five pairs of extracted third molars received two Class II preparations/restorations in each tooth. The authors randomly assigned each preparation to one of four adhesive groups: Adper Scotchbond Multipurpose Dental Adhesive (SBMP) (3M ESPE, St. Paul, Minn.), Clearfil SE Bond (CFSE) (Kuraray America, New York City), Prime & Bond NT (PBNT) (Dentsply Caulk, Milford, Del.) and PQ1 (Ultradent, South Jordan, Utah). They restored the teeth and obtained microtensile specimens from each cavity wall. Specimens were tested on a testing machine until they failed. RESULTS: The mean (+/- standard deviation) bond strengths (in megapascals) were as follows: SBMP (pulpal), 36.4 (17.2); SBMP (gingival), 29.7 (15.3); CFSE (pulpal), 50.8 (13.6); CFSE (gingival), 50.2 (14.0); PBNT (pulpal), 38.3 (19.2); PBNT (gingival), 38.9 (17.7); PQ1 (pulpal), 58.7 (8.7); and PQ1 (gingival), 54.5 (18.5). A two-way analysis of variance found an adhesive effect (P < .001) but no location effect (P >.05). CONCLUSIONS: PQ1 and CFSE performed the best. The results showed no significant difference in microtensile bond strength at the gingival wall versus the pulpal wall. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Under in vitro conditions, a total-etch ethanol-based adhesive (PQ1) failed cohesively more often than did the other adhesives tested.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The authors compared the microtensile bond strength of teeth restored with four adhesives at the gingival and pulpal cavity walls of Class II resin-based composite restorations. METHODS: Five pairs of extracted third molars received two Class II preparations/restorations in each tooth. The authors randomly assigned each preparation to one of four adhesive groups: Adper Scotchbond Multipurpose Dental Adhesive (SBMP) (3M ESPE, St. Paul, Minn.), Clearfil SE Bond (CFSE) (Kuraray America, New York City), Prime & Bond NT (PBNT) (Dentsply Caulk, Milford, Del.) and PQ1 (Ultradent, South Jordan, Utah). They restored the teeth and obtained microtensile specimens from each cavity wall. Specimens were tested on a testing machine until they failed. RESULTS: The mean (+/- standard deviation) bond strengths (in megapascals) were as follows: SBMP (pulpal), 36.4 (17.2); SBMP (gingival), 29.7 (15.3); CFSE (pulpal), 50.8 (13.6); CFSE (gingival), 50.2 (14.0); PBNT (pulpal), 38.3 (19.2); PBNT (gingival), 38.9 (17.7); PQ1 (pulpal), 58.7 (8.7); and PQ1 (gingival), 54.5 (18.5). A two-way analysis of variance found an adhesive effect (P < .001) but no location effect (P >.05). CONCLUSIONS: PQ1 and CFSE performed the best. The results showed no significant difference in microtensile bond strength at the gingival wall versus the pulpal wall. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Under in vitro conditions, a total-etch ethanol-based adhesive (PQ1) failed cohesively more often than did the other adhesives tested.