Literature DB >> 17243593

In vitro bonding performance of all-in-one adhesives. Part I--microtensile bond strengths.

Jorge Perdigão1, George Gomes, Renata Gondo, Jon W Fundingsland.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The objective of this project was to compare the microtensile bond strengths (microTBS) of five "all-in-one" adhesives using two 2-step adhesives as controls.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-four extracted human molars were randomly assigned to one of three substrates: dentin, unground enamel, or ground enamel. For each substrate, specimens were randomly assigned to one of five all-in-one adhesives: (1) Adper Prompt L-Pop (AP, 3M ESPE); (2) Clearfil S3 Bond (S3, Kuraray); (3) G-Bond (GB, GC America) (4) iBond (iB, Heraeus Kulzer); (5) Xeno IV (XE, Dentsply Caulk). Adper Single Bond Plus (SB, 3M ESPE) was used as a two-step etch-and-rinse control, while Clearfil SE Bond (SE, Kuraray) was used as a two-step self-etching control. Crowns were built with Filtek Z250 (3M ESPE) and sectioned in x and y directions. The resulting sticks were fractured in tension at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Statistical analysis was computed for each substrate with one-way ANOVA and Duncan's post-hoc test at p < 0.05.
RESULTS: Means+/-SD are given in MPa; pretesting failures are shown in brackets. Dentin--SE: 79.1+/-20.5, [0/85]; SB: 76.3+/-19.3, [0/82]; AP: 51.6+/-21.9, [0/90]; XE: 40.5+/-22.9, [7/81]; S3: 27.8+/-13.2, [7/91]; iB: 17.4+/-15.6, [25/91]; GB: 11.7+/-7.4, [5/92]. Unground enamel--SB: 33.1+/-10.5, [0/69]; AP: 27.6+/-7.5, [0/66]; S3: 24.6 +/-12.0, [0/70]; SE: 16.8+/-11.7, [3/60]; XE 15.4+/-14.1, [16/63]; iB: 11.2+/-11.5, [18/64]; GB: 9.5+/-12.4, [31/63]. Ground enamel--SB: 33.7+/-9.1, [0/69]; AP: 33.2+/-7.9, [0/77]; SE: 26.4+/-9.5, [0/67]; S3: 25.5+/-8.9; [0/56]; XE: 21.0 +/-8.9, [3/68]; GB: 18.2+/-10.3, [4/68]; iB: 12.3+/-8.9, [11/52]. For dentin, the Duncan's test ranked the means in 6 statistical subsets: GB <iB <S3 <XE < AP < SB = SE. For unground enamel, means were ranked in 4 statistical subsets: GB = iB < XE = SE < S3 = AP < SB. For ground enamel, the means were also ranked in 4 statistical subsets: iB < GB = XE < S3 = SE< AP = SB.
CONCLUSION: The bonding ability of the newest all-in-one adhesives depends on their specific composition. In light of the low in vitro bond strengths and high rate of spontaneous failures of some all-in-one adhesives compared to those of the two-step adhesives, the newest adhesives should be screened more strictly before they are recommended for clinical use.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17243593

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Adhes Dent        ISSN: 1461-5185            Impact factor:   2.359


  18 in total

1.  Effect of the application of a casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate (CPP-ACP) paste and adhesive systems on bond durability of a fissure sealant.

Authors:  Boniek Castillo Dutra Borges; Anderson Catelan; Robson Tetsuo Sasaki; Gláucia Maria Bovi Ambrosano; André Figueiredo Reis; Flávio Henrique Baggio Aguiar
Journal:  Odontology       Date:  2012-03-22       Impact factor: 2.634

2.  Comparison of the Er,Cr:YSGG laser with a chemical vapour deposition bur and conventional techniques for cavity preparation: a microleakage study.

Authors:  A Rüya Yazici; Zeren Yıldırım; Sibel A Antonson; Evren Kilinc; Daniele Koch; Donald E Antonson; Berrin Dayangaç; Gül Ozgünaltay
Journal:  Lasers Med Sci       Date:  2010-09-15       Impact factor: 3.161

3.  Immediate bonding effectiveness of contemporary composite cements to dentin.

Authors:  Mouhamed Sarr; Atsushi Mine; Jan De Munck; Marcio Vivan Cardoso; Abdoul Wakhabe Kane; José Vreven; Bart Van Meerbeek; Kirsten L Van Landuyt
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2009-08-25       Impact factor: 3.573

4.  Clinical effectiveness of a one-step self-etch adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions at 2 years.

Authors:  R Banu Ermis; Kirsten L Van Landuyt; Marcio Vivan Cardoso; Jan De Munck; Bart Van Meerbeek; Marleen Peumans
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2011-05-21       Impact factor: 3.573

5.  Bonding and sealing ability of a new self-adhering flowable composite resin in class I restorations.

Authors:  Alessandro Vichi; Mariam Margvelashvili; Cecilia Goracci; Federica Papacchini; Marco Ferrari
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2012-10-20       Impact factor: 3.573

6.  Effect of thermal aging on the tensile bond strength at reduced areas of seven current adhesives.

Authors:  Bruno Baracco; M Victoria Fuentes; Miguel A Garrido; Santiago González-López; Laura Ceballos
Journal:  Odontology       Date:  2012-07-13       Impact factor: 2.634

7.  Effect of different bonding strategies on adhesion to deep and superficial permanent dentin.

Authors:  Rafael Eduardo Fernandes Pegado; Flávia Lucisano Botelho do Amaral; Flávia Martão Flório; Roberta Tarkany Basting
Journal:  Eur J Dent       Date:  2010-04

8.  Influence of casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate application, smear layer removal, and storage time on resin-dentin bonding.

Authors:  Jun Lin; Wei-ying Zheng; Peng-ruo-feng Liu; Ning Zhang; Hui-ping Lin; Yi-jing Fan; Xin-hua Gu; Oliver Vollrath; Christian Mehl
Journal:  J Zhejiang Univ Sci B       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 3.066

9.  Effect of Different Surface Treatments on Repair Micro-shear Bond Strength of Silica- and Zirconia-filled Composite Resins.

Authors:  Mohammad Joulaei; Mahmoud Bahari; Anahid Ahmadi; Siavash Savadi Oskoee
Journal:  J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects       Date:  2012-12-11

Review 10.  Current perspectives on dental adhesion: (1) Dentin adhesion - not there yet.

Authors:  Jorge Perdigão
Journal:  Jpn Dent Sci Rev       Date:  2020-09-23
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.