μSBS Values Research Articles

Influence of different test parameters on the microshear bond strength of two simplified etch-and-rinse adhesives.

To evaluate the effect of different test parameters on the resin-dentin microshear bond strength (μSBS). A 1.5-mm-thick dentin disk was prepared in each of 140 human molars. The disks were divided into five groups to test the following variables: time of adhesive light polymerization (n = 20), storage time (n = 40), bonding area (n = 40), Tygon tube removal (n = 20), and time of composite placement (n = 20). The adhesives were applied and each specimen was subjected to μSBS testing. All fractured specimens were observed with SEM. The data from each experiment were subjected to two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α = 0.05). The storage time, bonding area, and Tygon tube removal did not influence the μSBS. Higher μSBS values were found when empty Tygon tubes were filled after positioning and when the adhesive was light polymerized before Tygon tube placement (p < 0.05). Differences in test parameters affected the μSBS of adhesives, especially the time of adhesive light polymerization and composite placement.

Effect of Different Cleaning Regimens on the Adhesion of Resin to Saliva‐Contaminated Ceramics

The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of different cleaning regimens on the microshear bond strength (μSBS) of three different all-ceramic surfaces after saliva contamination. Cubic ceramic specimens (3 × 3 × 3 mm(3) ) were prepared from three types of ceramics: zirconium dioxide (Z), leucite-reinforced glass ceramic (E), lithium disilicate glass ceramic (EX; n = 12/subgroup). A total of 144 composite resin cylinders (diameter: 1 mm, height: 3 mm) were prepared. Three human-saliva-contaminated surfaces of ceramic specimens were cleaned with either water spray (WS), with 0.5% sodium hypochlorite solution (HC), or with a cleaning paste (CP). Control surface (C) was not contaminated or cleaned. Composite cylinders were bonded to each surface with a resin luting cement. All specimens were stored at 37°C in deionized water until fracture testing. μSBS tests were performed in a universal testing machine (0.5 mm/min), and the results (MPa ± SD) were statistically analyzed (two-way ANOVA, Bonferroni a = 0.05). Fractured surfaces were analyzed to identify the failure types using an optical microscope at 50× magnification. Two representative specimens from all groups were examined with scanning electron microscopy. μSBS test results were significantly affected by the saliva cleaning regimens (p = 0.01) and the ceramic types (p = 0.03). The interaction terms between the ceramic type and saliva cleaning regimen were also significant (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences among the μSBS values (MPa ± SD) for the Z group (C = 17.5 ± 8.8; WS = 16.0 ± 4.9; HC = 17.6 ± 5.8; CP = 16.6 ± 7.5; p > 0.05). In the EX group, C resulted in significantly higher μSBS values (32.6 ± 7.4) than CP (17.4 ± 8.9), WS (15.6 ± 7.3), and HC (14.3 ± 4.5) (p < 0.05); however, C (20.4 ± 7.1) and HC (19.2 ± 7.5) showed higher μSBS values than CP (13.8 ± 4.8) and WS (10.9 ± 5.7) in the E group. Some cohesive failures within the luting resin were observed in the E and EX groups, whereas only adhesive failures were seen in zirconia groups for all surface treatments. Different ceramic surface cleaning regimens after saliva contamination of the zirconium dioxide revealed μSBS similar to the control group, whereas all surface cleaning regimens tested significantly decreased the bond strength values in the lithium disilicate glass ceramic. The leucite-reinforced glass-ceramic group benefited from 0.5% sodium hypochlorite solution cleaning with increased bond strengths. Adhesive cementation of zirconia presents a clinically challenging protocol, and the cementation surface contamination of the zirconia restorations and the inadequate removal of the contaminants increase the risk of failure, as for all ceramic types. This study demonstrated that surface cleaning regimens should be applied according to different ceramic properties.

The effect of cavity disinfectants on the micro-shear bond strength of dentin adhesives.

Objectives:This study was carried out to examine the effect of application of four different disinfecting agents on the micro-shear bond strength (μ-SBS) of an etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesive systems.Materials and Methods:One hundred flat dentin surfaces of human molars were produced by wet grinding the buccal surfaces. Specimens were randomly assigned to five groups according to the disinfectant used: Group I: Control (no disinfectant); Group II: 5.25% sodium hypochlorite based; Group III: 2% chlorhexidine based (Consepsis), Group IV: 0.1% benzalkoniumchloride based (Tubulicid red) and Group V: 3% doxycycline based (Biopure, MTAD). Specimens were bonded using either Adper Single Bond 2 or Clearfil S3 Bond, which were employed according to the manufacturer's instructions. Resin composite microcylinders were bonded using Tygon® tubes for μ-SBS testing. The modes of failure were noted after visual examination using a binocular stereomicroscope at ×25 magnification. Failures were classified as adhesive, or mixed. μ-SBS results were analyzed using two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's post-hoc test.Results:Dentin disinfectants tested significantly negated the bonding of Adper Single bond 2 and the groups were ranked; Group I > Group V = Group IV > Group II = Group III, meanwhile they enhanced significantly the μ-SBS values upon using Clearfil S3 Bond and were ranked; Group II > Group III = Group IV = Group V > Group I. Most failures were adhesive with the Adper single bond adhesive system. Mixed modes of failure were evident with Clearfil S3 bond.Conclusions:The disinfectants tested should not be used with Adper Single Bond 2 when applied before the etching step, However they could be used safely prior to bonding with Clearfil S3 Bond.

The effect of water storage on micro-shear bond strength of contemporary composite resins using different dentin adhesive systems

PurposeTo evaluate effect of water storage on micro-shear bond strength of adhesives to class I cavity-bottom dentin using two types of composites resin. Materials and methodsNinety teeth were divided into three groups I,II&III (thirty molars each) according to the adhesive used, either total-etch 2-step (Adper Single Bond, 3M ESPE), self-etch 2-step(Clearfil SE Bond, Kuraray), or self-etch 1-step(Futura Bond, Voco) respectively. Each group was subdivided according to type of composite restoration used, either Hybrid (Clearfil APX, Kuraray), and Packable (Filtek P60, 3M ESPE). All teeth were thermocycled for 500 cycles,and subjected to occlusal load cycling for 120.000 cycles corresponding to 6 months clinical use. Bonding effectiveness was assessed by micro-shear bond strength test (μSBS) after 1 day, 3 months, and 6 months water storage. ResultsThe mean μSBS values (±SD) for Subgroup IA(SB2-APX) were 32.58 ± 1.416, 31.820 ± 2.119, and 30.910 ± 1.393 MPa after 24 h, 3 month, and 6 month respectively; while for Subgroup I B(SB2-P60) were 31.960 ± 1.659, 31.350 ± 1.765, and 30.380 ± 1.773 MPa respectively. Subgroup II A (CSE-APX) recorded 37.28 ± 1.061, 36.77 ± 2.32, 36.21 ± 1.964 MPa, while Subgroup II B(CSE-P60) recorded 37.0 ± 2.115, 36.460 ± 1.727, and 36.080 ± 1.910 MPa after 24 h, 3 month, and 6 month respectively. Subgroup III A (FB-APX) showed 30.550 ± 2.088, 26.890 ± 1.533, and 21.590 ± 1.784 MPa, while subgroup III B (FB-P60) showed 29.790 ± 1.172, 25.960 ± 2.672, and 21.410 ± 2.126 MPa after 24 h, 3 month, and 6 month respectively. ConclusionTwo-step Total-etch and Two-step self etch adhesives showed better tolerance to water storage compared to One-step self-etch adhesive. However, the type of composite restoration had no significant effect on the microshear bond strength of dental adhesives.

The effect of the loading method and cross-head speed on resin–dentin microshear bond strength

This study compared the effect of different loading methods and cross­head speeds on resin–dentin microshear bond strength (μSBS) using two etch­and­rinse adhesive systems. Sixty molar teeth had their dentin surfaces exposed and were randomly distributed into 12 groups (n=5), according to a combination of the factors: loading methods (orthodontic-looped wire and chisel systems), cross-head speed (0.5, 1.0 and 5.0mm/min) and adhesive system (Adper Single Bond 2 and XP Bond). Five tygon tubes were positioned over each sample, filled with composite resin and photoactivated. After 24h, they were tested. The data were analyzed with a two-way ANOVA and Tukey test (α=0.05). The µSBS of the adhesives was higher with the chisel methods, compared to the orthodontic-looped wire (p<0.05). The cross-head speed was only significant for the chisel (p<0.05). The evaluated test variables affect the µSBS for both adhesives and therefore should be standardized; however the loading method proved to have the most effect on μSBS values.

Effect of incorporation of silane in the bonding agent on the repair potential of machinable esthetic blocks.

Objective:To investigate the repair potential of CAD/CAM (computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing) ceramic and composite blocks using a silane-containing bonding agent with different repair protocols.Materials and Methods:Twenty-four discs were constructed from CAD/CAM ceramic and composite blocks. The discs were divided into six groups according to surface pre-treatment employed; GI: Diamond stone roughening (SR), GII: SR+ silanization (SR+S), GIII: Hydrofluoric acid etching (HF), GIV: HF+ silanization (HF+S), GV: Silica coating (SC), GVI: SC+ silanization (SC+S). Silane-containing bonding agent (Single Bond Universal adhesive, 3M ESPE) was applied to the pre-treated discs. Prior to light curing, irises were cut from tygon tubes (internal diameter = 0.8 mm and height = 0.5 mm) and mounted on each treated surface. Nanofilled resin composite (Filtek Z350XT, 3M ESPE) was packed into the cylinder lumen and light-cured (n = 10). The specimens were subjected to microshear bond strength testing (μ-SBS) using universal testing machine. Failure modes of the fractured specimens were analyzed using field emission scanning electron microscope (FESEM). Eight representative discs were prepared to analyze the effect of surface treatments on surface topography using FESEM. μ-SBS results were analyzed using ANOVA and Tukeys post-hoc test.Results:Three-way ANOVA results showed that the materials, surface pre-treatment protocols, and silanization step had a statistically significant effect on the mean μ-SBS values at P ≤ 0.001. For ceramic discs, the groups were ranked; GIV (24.45 ± 7.35)> GVI ((20.18 ± 2.84)> GV (7.14 ± 14)= GII (6.72 ± 1.91)=GI (6.34 ± 2.21)=GIII (5.72 ± 2.18). For composite discs, groups were ranked; GI (24.98 ± 7.69)=GVI (24.84 ± 7.00) >GII (15.85 ± 5.29) =GV (14.65 ± 4.5)= GIV (14.24 ± 2.95)≥ GIII ((9.37 ± 2.78).Conclusion:The additional silanization step cannot be omitted if the repair protocol comprises of either hydrofluoric acid etching or silica coating for both CAD/CAM esthetic restorative materials. However, this step can be suppressed by using silane-containing adhesive with diamond stone roughened repair protocol.

Influence of cavity disinfectant and adhesive systems on the bonding procedure in demineralized dentin - a one-year in vitro evaluation.

To evaluate the influence of a 2% chlorhexidine solution (CHX) on the bond strength and nano leakage of two self-etching adhesive systems on demineralized dentin over a 12-month period. The middle dentin from sound third molars was exposed and demineralized in vitro. Twelve groups were formed using different adhesive systems (Clearfil Protect Bond [PB], Clearfil SE Bond [SE]) dentin treatment (with or without CHX application), and water-storage times (24 h, 6 and 12 months). Composite resin cylinders were bonded to the prepared dentin, and these specimens underwent microshear bond strength (µSBS) testing and nano leakage evaluation. µSBS data were submitted to a three-way ANOVA and Tukey's test. The failure mode and nano leakage were analyzed descriptively by score. There was a statistically significant interaction only between the adhesive system and CHX, and adhesive system and water-storage times. SE showed the lowest µSBS just at 24 h water-storage time regardless of CHX. A significant decrease in µSBS values after 6 months of water storage occurred in all of the groups and was maintained until 12 months. Adhesive failure increased with storage time. All groups showed nano leakage at the resin/dentin interfaces and an increased silver deposition was noticed after 6 and 12 months of water storage. The highest percentages of nano leakage were found in CHX groups. CHX did not interfere with µSBS values for either self-etching adhesive system, but water storage did. Bond strength decreased for both adhesive systems after 6 and 12 months, regardless of CHX application. Nano leakage increased with water-storage time and with CHX application.

Influence of alloy microstructure on the microshear bond strength of basic alloys to a resin luting cement

The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of microstructure and composition of basic alloys on their microshear bond strength (µSBS) to resin luting cement. The alloys used were: Supreme Cast-V (SC), Tilite Star (TS), Wiron 99 (W9), VeraBond II (VBII), VeraBond (VB), Remanium (RM) and IPS d.SIGN 30 (IPS). Five wax patterns (13 mm in diameter and 4mm height) were invested, and cast in a centrifugal casting machine for each basic alloy. The specimens were embedded in resin, polished with a SiC paper and sandblasted. After cleaning the metal surfaces, six tygon tubes (0.5 mm height and 0.75 mm in diameter) were placed on each alloy surface, the resin cement (Panavia F) was inserted, and the excess was removed before light-curing. After storage (24 h/37°C), the specimens were subjected to µSBS testing (0.5 mm/min). The data were subjected to a one-way repeated measures analysis of variance and Turkey's test (α=0.05). After polishing, their microstructures were revealed with specific conditioners. The highest µSBS (mean/standard deviation in MPa) were observed in the alloys with dendritic structure, eutectic formation or precipitation: VB (30.6/1.7), TS (29.8/0.9), SC (30.6/1.7), with the exception of IPS (31.1/0.9) which showed high µSBS but no eutectic formation. The W9 (28.1/1.5), VBII (25.9/2.0) and RM (25.9/0.9) showed the lowest µSBS and no eutectic formation. It seems that alloys with eutectic formation provide the highest µSBS values when bonded to a light-cured resin luting cement.

Microshear bond strength of self-etching adhesives to caries-affected dentin identified using the dye permeability test.

The aim of this study was to compare microshear bond strength (µSBS) of different adhesives to normal dentin (ND) and caries-affected dentin (AD) as differentiated using the dye permeability test. One hundred freshly extracted carious teeth were ground to expose normal and cariesaffected dentin. Differentiation between both substrates was carried out using microhardness and a new dye permeability method. Ground teeth were divided into 5 groups according to the adhesive tested; Clearfil SE Bond (SE), Clearfil DC Bond (DC) (Kuraray), Bond Force (BF) (Tokuyama), AdheseOne (AH) (Ivoclar), Adper Prompt-L-pop (PR) (3M ESPE). Adhesives were applied to selected substrate, and composite cylinders (0.9 mm diameter x 0.7 mm length) were formed. After 24 h, specimens were subjected to microshear testing at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Failure modes were determined using a stereomicroscope at 40X magnification. Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-tests. Normal dentin was permeable for the dye, while caries-affected dentin was impermeable. Vickers hardness numbers (VHN) for normal and caries-affected dentin were 63.98 ± 3.24 and 62.40 ± 3.49 respectively, which were not significantly different (p > 0.05). µSBS values were: SE-ND = 22.34 ± 6.4, SE-AD = 18.70 ± 4.0, BF-ND = 24.52 ± 4.9, BF-AD = 18.31 ± 4.9, DC-ND = 24.49 ± 8.0, DC-AD = 18.97 ± 9.4, AH-ND = 17.21 ± 6.8, AH-AD = 17.03 ± 10.3, PR-ND = 13.67 ± 4.4, PR-AD = 7.31 ± 2.4 MPa. A statistically significant difference was found among the adhesive systems to both normal (p < 0.01) and caries-affected dentin (p < 0.001). However, µSBS of SE, DC, and AH adhesives to normal dentin were not significantly different from those of caries-affected dentin (p > 0.05). The permeability test was an effective tool to differentiate between normal and caries-affected dentin. Some adhesive systems showed no significant difference in their bond to normal or affected dentin.

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

Background and aims Effect of surface treatments on repair bond strength of aged composite resins might be different due to their dissimilar fillers. The aim was to evaluate the effect of different surface treatments on repair micro-shear bond strength (µSBS) of silica- (Spectrum TPH) and zirconia-filled (Filtek Z250) composite resins. Materials and methods Twenty-seven composite resin blocks were made from each type of composite resin: Z250 and Spectrum TPH. After aging, blocks of each type were randomly divided into three groups according to surface treatments: alloy primer, silane, and only surface roughening. Subsequently, each group was further subdivided into 3 subgroups based on the adhesive system used: Single Bond, Clearfil SE Bond, and Margin Bond. Four composite resin columns were added on each block. After thermocycling, µSBStest were done at cross head speed of 0.5 mm/min. Data was analysed using multifactor ANOVA, one-way ANOVA and a post-hoc Bonferroni tests (α = 0.05). Results Analysis of data showed that the effect of composite resin type was not significant (p > 0.05), but the effects of the type of surface treatment (p = 0.01) and the type of adhesive system (p = 0.01) were significant on repair µSBS. In addition, the cumulative effect of the composite type-surface treatment and the composite type with the type of adhesive system were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). However, the cumulative effects of the adhesive system-surface treatment (p = 0.03) and the composite type-the adhesive system-surface treatments (p = 0.002) were significant. Conclusion Although repair µSBS values of both silica- and zirconia-filled composite resins were similar, use of different combinations of surface treatments and adhesive systems affected their repair µSBS differently.