PURPOSE: To use shear bond strength (SBS) and shear fatigue strength (SFS) testing to determine the durability of adhesion of self-adhesive restorative materials compared to composite resin bonded with a universal adhesive. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A universal adhesive, Prime & Bond Active, was used in self-etch mode to bond Z-100 composite resin to enamel and dentin. Three commercially available restorative materials and one experimental material with self-adhesive properties, Activa (A), Fuji II LC(F), and Equia Forte (E) and ASAR-MP4 (S) were also bonded to enamel and dentin. The SBS and SFS were determined for all materials. A staircase method was used to determine the SFS with 10 Hz frequency for 50,000 cycles or until failure occurred. RESULTS: On enamel, S generated similar values to the adhesive/composite materials and higher values than F, E, and A. On dentin, the composite/universal adhesive showed significantly higher SBS and SFS than the self-adhesive materials. S, F, and E generated higher values than A on dentin. CONCLUSION: SBS and SFS values to enamel were similar for all materials tested except Activa which generated lower enamel values. On dentin surfaces, the self-adhesive materials generated similar SBS and SFS, with the exception of Activa. Those values were lower than that generated with composite resin and a universal adhesive.
PURPOSE: To use shear bond strength (SBS) and shear fatigue strength (SFS) testing to determine the durability of adhesion of self-adhesive restorative materials compared to composite resin bonded with a universal adhesive. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A universal adhesive, Prime & Bond Active, was used in self-etch mode to bond Z-100 composite resin to enamel and dentin. Three commercially available restorative materials and one experimental material with self-adhesive properties, Activa (A), Fuji II LC(F), and Equia Forte (E) and ASAR-MP4 (S) were also bonded to enamel and dentin. The SBS and SFS were determined for all materials. A staircase method was used to determine the SFS with 10 Hz frequency for 50,000 cycles or until failure occurred. RESULTS: On enamel, S generated similar values to the adhesive/composite materials and higher values than F, E, and A. On dentin, the composite/universal adhesive showed significantly higher SBS and SFS than the self-adhesive materials. S, F, and E generated higher values than A on dentin. CONCLUSION: SBS and SFS values to enamel were similar for all materials tested except Activa which generated lower enamel values. On dentin surfaces, the self-adhesive materials generated similar SBS and SFS, with the exception of Activa. Those values were lower than that generated with composite resin and a universal adhesive.
Entities:
Keywords:
adhesion to dental hard tissues; bond durability; fatigue testing; glass ionomers; self-adhesive restoratives
Authors: Akimasa Tsujimoto; Wayne W Barkmeier; Erica C Teixeira; Toshiki Takamizawa; Masashi Miyazaki; Mark A Latta Journal: Jpn Dent Sci Rev Date: 2022-06-25
Authors: Afreen Bilgrami; Afsheen Maqsood; Mohammad Khursheed Alam; Naseer Ahmed; Mohammed Mustafa; Ali Robaian Alqahtani; Abdullah Alshehri; Abdullah Ali Alqahtani; Shahad Alghannam Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2022-06-17 Impact factor: 3.748
Authors: Magali Inglês; Joana Vasconcelos E Cruz; Ana Mano Azul; Mário Polido; António H S Delgado Journal: Polymers (Basel) Date: 2022-09-21 Impact factor: 4.967