Abstract
ObjectivesThe aims of this study were to evaluate the effect of resin composite (Filtek Z250 and Filtek Flow Z350) and adhesive system [(Solobond Plus, Futurabond NR (VOCO) and Adper Single Bond (3M ESPE)] on the microtensile (µTBS) and microshear bond strength (µSBS) tests on enamel, and to correlate the bond strength means between them. Material and methodsThirty-six extracted human molars were sectioned to obtain two tooth halves: one for µTBS and the other one for µSBS. Adhesive systems and resin composites were applied to the enamel ground surfaces and light-cured. After storage (37ºC/24 h) specimens were stressed (0.5 mm/ min). Fracture modes were analyzed under scanning electron microscopy. The data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α=0.05). ResultsThe correlation between tests was estimated with Pearson's product-moment correlation statistics (α =0.05). For both tests only the main factor resin composite was statistically significant (p<0.05). The correlation test detected a positive (r=0.91) and significant (p=0.01) correlation between the tests. ConclusionsThe results were more influenced by the resin type than by the adhesives. Both microbond tests seem to be positive and linearly correlated and can therefore lead to similar conclusions.
Highlights
Various conventional mechanical test methods, VXFK DV VKHDU WHQVLOH DQG ÀH[XUDO WHVWV KDYH been used to assess dental adhesion
For the PTBS, two-way ANOVA detected that the Composite resin Adhesive system
Enamel is represented by the pointer, adhesive by the white star and resin composite by the black star. (C) represents a cohesive failure in enamel
Summary
Various conventional mechanical test methods, VXFK DV VKHDU WHQVLOH DQG ÀH[XUDO WHVWV KDYH been used to assess dental adhesion. Problems related to the validity of the measurements obtained began to arise as cohesive failures in the substrate were frequently observed with new adhesives that yielded improved bond strengths. According to some researchers[30], the explanation for this fact was that stresses were mostly concentrated in the substrate, causing it to fail prematurely, before failure at the interface itself. Another point that has drawn fundamental criticism concerns the non-uniform nature of stress distributions along tested interfaces[7]. Some authors[25,26] have advocated a new test method using specimens with reduced dimensions, as a substitute for the conventional shear test: the so-called “microshear” bond strength (PSBS) test
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
