Dataset Information

Effect of Exclusive Primer and Adhesive on Microtensile Bond Strength of Self-Adhesive Resin Cement to Dentin.

ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of G-CEM One Primer (GCOP) and self-etching adhesive on the microtensile bond strength (µTBS) between self-adhesive resin cement G-CEM One (GCO) and dentin. Teeth were sectioned to expose the flat dentin surface and randomly assigned into five groups (n = 15) according to the dentin surface treatment: 1) no surface treatment, 2) GCOP, 3) All-Bond Universal (ABU), 4) GCOP followed by ABU (GCOP/ABU), 5) ABU followed by GCOP (ABU/GCOP). The composite resin blocks were bonded to the dentin surface using GCO. The specimens were stored in distilled water at 37 °C for 24 h, then sectioned into sticks (1 mm × 10 mm). The ?TBS values were statistically analyzed using 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD) test (? = 0.05) and failure mode was examined under a stereomicroscope. The bonding interface of each specimen was evaluated using confocal laser scanning microscopy. The GCOP group exhibited the highest µTBS value and there were no significant differences observed between GCOP, GCOP/ABU, ABU/GCOP groups (p > 0.05). The use of GCOP with GCO results in the improved µTBS between GCO and dentin. In conclusion, using only GCOP with GCO for bonding of indirect restoration is extremely simple and increasing bond strength.

SUBMITTER: Kim BN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7288079 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of Exclusive Primer and Adhesive on Microtensile Bond Strength of Self-Adhesive Resin Cement to Dentin.

Kim Bit-Na BN Son Sung-Ae SA Park Jeong-Kil JK

Materials (Basel, Switzerland) 20200520 10

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of G-CEM One Primer (GCOP) and self-etching adhesive on the microtensile bond strength (µTBS) between self-adhesive resin cement G-CEM One (GCO) and dentin. Teeth were sectioned to expose the flat dentin surface and randomly assigned into five groups (n = 15) according to the dentin surface treatment: 1) no surface treatment, 2) GCOP, 3) All-Bond Universal (ABU), 4) GCOP followed by ABU (GCOP/ABU), 5) ABU followed by GCOP (ABU/GCOP). The compos ...[more]

PMID: 32443843

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of different bonding agents on bond-strength to demineralized enamel after remineralizing treatments and resin infiltration. Methods: Buccal enamel of 120 bovine incisors was polished and then were divided into five experimental groups: SE (sound enamel); DE (demineralized enamel); AS (demineralized enamel immersed in artificial saliva for eight weeks); NaF (demineralized enamel treated with 0.05% sodium fluoride solution (one minute) for eight weeks); Ic (demineralized enamel infiltrated with a low-viscosity resin (Icon-DGM). These groups were subdivided according to adhesive system used: self-etching adhesive Adper Easy One (3M/ESPE) and etch-and-rinse adhesive Single Bond (3M/ESPE). The composite resin blocks were fabricated using a Teflon matrix. A thermomechanical cycling machine was used to carry out the artificial aging of the specimens and thus were sectioned into sticks. The microtensile tests were performed using a universal testing machine at a cross-head speed of 1 mm/min. Data (in MPa) were subjected to two-way ANOVA and Tukey's tests (5%). Results: Significant differences were found for both factors tested and interactions (p<0.05). Tukey's test results of µTBS (mean ± SD) were: etch-and-rinse SE (28.79±3.93); DE (30.41±7.22); AS (29.03±3.33); NaF (29.81±4.06)a; Ic (29.47±5.5); and self-etching SE (30.37±6.96); DE (14.62±4.47); AS (9.79±2.32); NaF (9.36±2.31); Ic (30.78±8.68). Conclusions: Resin infiltration did not affect the bond strength of demineralized enamel for both adhesive systems tested. For etch-and-rinse adhesive, no differences were observed for the tested groups. For self-etching adhesive, only the resin-infiltrated group showed similar bond strength to sound enamel. Both etch-and-rinse and self-etching adhesive systems can be used in resin-infiltrated enamel, if a composite restoration needs to be further performed. In enamel that has undergone the de/remineralization process, the use of a total-etch adhesive might be preferable for the restorative procedure.

Project description:Statement of problemIt has been shown that selective etching improves the bond strength of some self-adhesive resin cements to enamel. The same has yet to be determined with dentin pre-treatment.PurposeTo evaluate the tensile bond strength of two self-adhesive resin cements after two dentin surface pre-treatments, and also to analyze the cement/dentin interface.Material and methodsOne hundred and twelve human third molars were extracted. The teeth were distributed into seven groups (n = 16). Maxcem Elite Chroma (MAX) (Kerr, Scafati, Italy) and Relyx U200 (RLX) (3M ESPE, Neuss, Germany) were used without pre-treatment or with two dentin pre-treatments (polyacrylic acid or phosphoric acid). A conventional etch-and-rinse (EAR) luting cement, NX3 Nexus (NX3) (Kerr, Scafati, Italy), was used as an external control group. Before testing, all specimens were stored in distilled water for 24 hours. Three specimens from each group were prepared for scanning electron microscopy observation (SEM). A tensile bond strength test (TBS) was performed for the remaining samples. The data were statistically analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test and Pairwise comparisons using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.ResultsMAX without pre-treatment and with phosphoric acid etching attained statistically similar bond strengths to NX3 (P > 0.05). There was a statistical difference (P = 0.00488) between RLX without pre-treatment (5.62 MPa) and NX3 (10.88 MPa). Phosphoric acid pre-treatment increases the bond strength values of RLX to a strength that is comparable to NX3 (P > 0.05). The lowest tensile bond strength (TBS) was attained after the application of polyacrylic acid with MAX (1.98 MPa). No statistical differences were found between the RLX bond strength values after polyacrylic acid treatment and RLX without pre-treatment or NX3 (P > 0.05). SEM observations disclosed an enhanced potential of the self-adhesive cements to infiltrate into dentin tubules and form resin tags when applied after phosphoric acid pre-treatment. The failure mode was dominantly adhesive.ConclusionsOn dentin, the self-adhesive resin cement MAX might be an effective alternative to conventional resin cement. Etching the dentin with phosphoric acid does not have a negative effect on the bond strength of MAX to dentin. On the other hand, phosphoric acid improved the bond strength of RLX when compared to EAR cement.

Dataset Information

Effect of Exclusive Primer and Adhesive on Microtensile Bond Strength of Self-Adhesive Resin Cement to Dentin.

Publications

Effect of Exclusive Primer and Adhesive on Microtensile Bond Strength of Self-Adhesive Resin Cement to Dentin.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets