Microtensile bond strength test and failure analysis to assess bonding characteristics of different adhesion approaches to ground versus unground enamel

This study evaluated the bonding characteristics to ground and unground enamel obtained with different strategies. For this purpose, 24 sound third-molars were bisected mesiodistally to obtain tooth halves. A flat enamel area was delimited in the tooth sections, which were randomly distributed into 8 groups (n=6), according to the enamel condition (ground and unground) and adhesive system (Adper Single Bond 2 - SB2; Adper Prompt L-Pop - PLP; Adper Prompt - AD; Clearfil SE Bond - SE). Each system was applied according manufacturers' instructions and a 6-mm-high resin composite "crown" was incrementally built up on bonded surfaces. Hourglass-shaped specimens with 0.8 mm² cross-section were produced. Microtensile bond strength (μTBS) was recorded and the failure patterns were classified. Results were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α=0.05). There were no statistically significant differences among the μTBS values of SB2, PLP and AD (p>0.05). SE values were significantly lower (p0.05). There was prevalence of cohesive failure within enamel, adhesive system and resin composite for SB2. The self-etch systems produced higher incidence of cohesive failures in the adhesive system. Enamel condition did not determine significant differences on bonding characteristics for the same bonding system. In conclusion, the bonding systems evaluated in this study resulted in specific μTBS and failure patterns due to the particular interaction with enamel.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Hipólito,Vinicius Di, Alonso,Roberta Caroline Bruschi, Carrilho,Marcela Rocha de Oliveira, Anauate Netto,Camillo, Sinhoreti,Mário Alexandre Coelho, Goes,Mario Fernando de
Format: Digital revista
Language:English
Published: Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto 2011
Online Access:http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-64402011000200006
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id oai:scielo:S0103-64402011000200006
record_format ojs
spelling oai:scielo:S0103-644020110002000062011-06-08Microtensile bond strength test and failure analysis to assess bonding characteristics of different adhesion approaches to ground versus unground enamelHipólito,Vinicius DiAlonso,Roberta Caroline BruschiCarrilho,Marcela Rocha de OliveiraAnauate Netto,CamilloSinhoreti,Mário Alexandre CoelhoGoes,Mario Fernando de enamel adhesive systems bond strength failure analysis scanning electron microscopy This study evaluated the bonding characteristics to ground and unground enamel obtained with different strategies. For this purpose, 24 sound third-molars were bisected mesiodistally to obtain tooth halves. A flat enamel area was delimited in the tooth sections, which were randomly distributed into 8 groups (n=6), according to the enamel condition (ground and unground) and adhesive system (Adper Single Bond 2 - SB2; Adper Prompt L-Pop - PLP; Adper Prompt - AD; Clearfil SE Bond - SE). Each system was applied according manufacturers' instructions and a 6-mm-high resin composite "crown" was incrementally built up on bonded surfaces. Hourglass-shaped specimens with 0.8 mm² cross-section were produced. Microtensile bond strength (μTBS) was recorded and the failure patterns were classified. Results were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α=0.05). There were no statistically significant differences among the μTBS values of SB2, PLP and AD (p>0.05). SE values were significantly lower (p0.05). There was prevalence of cohesive failure within enamel, adhesive system and resin composite for SB2. The self-etch systems produced higher incidence of cohesive failures in the adhesive system. Enamel condition did not determine significant differences on bonding characteristics for the same bonding system. In conclusion, the bonding systems evaluated in this study resulted in specific μTBS and failure patterns due to the particular interaction with enamel.info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessFundação Odontológica de Ribeirão PretoBrazilian Dental Journal v.22 n.2 20112011-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articletext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-64402011000200006en10.1590/S0103-64402011000200006
institution SCIELO
collection OJS
country Brasil
countrycode BR
component Revista
access En linea
databasecode rev-scielo-br
tag revista
region America del Sur
libraryname SciELO
language English
format Digital
author Hipólito,Vinicius Di
Alonso,Roberta Caroline Bruschi
Carrilho,Marcela Rocha de Oliveira
Anauate Netto,Camillo
Sinhoreti,Mário Alexandre Coelho
Goes,Mario Fernando de
spellingShingle Hipólito,Vinicius Di
Alonso,Roberta Caroline Bruschi
Carrilho,Marcela Rocha de Oliveira
Anauate Netto,Camillo
Sinhoreti,Mário Alexandre Coelho
Goes,Mario Fernando de
Microtensile bond strength test and failure analysis to assess bonding characteristics of different adhesion approaches to ground versus unground enamel
author_facet Hipólito,Vinicius Di
Alonso,Roberta Caroline Bruschi
Carrilho,Marcela Rocha de Oliveira
Anauate Netto,Camillo
Sinhoreti,Mário Alexandre Coelho
Goes,Mario Fernando de
author_sort Hipólito,Vinicius Di
title Microtensile bond strength test and failure analysis to assess bonding characteristics of different adhesion approaches to ground versus unground enamel
title_short Microtensile bond strength test and failure analysis to assess bonding characteristics of different adhesion approaches to ground versus unground enamel
title_full Microtensile bond strength test and failure analysis to assess bonding characteristics of different adhesion approaches to ground versus unground enamel
title_fullStr Microtensile bond strength test and failure analysis to assess bonding characteristics of different adhesion approaches to ground versus unground enamel
title_full_unstemmed Microtensile bond strength test and failure analysis to assess bonding characteristics of different adhesion approaches to ground versus unground enamel
title_sort microtensile bond strength test and failure analysis to assess bonding characteristics of different adhesion approaches to ground versus unground enamel
description This study evaluated the bonding characteristics to ground and unground enamel obtained with different strategies. For this purpose, 24 sound third-molars were bisected mesiodistally to obtain tooth halves. A flat enamel area was delimited in the tooth sections, which were randomly distributed into 8 groups (n=6), according to the enamel condition (ground and unground) and adhesive system (Adper Single Bond 2 - SB2; Adper Prompt L-Pop - PLP; Adper Prompt - AD; Clearfil SE Bond - SE). Each system was applied according manufacturers' instructions and a 6-mm-high resin composite "crown" was incrementally built up on bonded surfaces. Hourglass-shaped specimens with 0.8 mm² cross-section were produced. Microtensile bond strength (μTBS) was recorded and the failure patterns were classified. Results were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α=0.05). There were no statistically significant differences among the μTBS values of SB2, PLP and AD (p>0.05). SE values were significantly lower (p0.05). There was prevalence of cohesive failure within enamel, adhesive system and resin composite for SB2. The self-etch systems produced higher incidence of cohesive failures in the adhesive system. Enamel condition did not determine significant differences on bonding characteristics for the same bonding system. In conclusion, the bonding systems evaluated in this study resulted in specific μTBS and failure patterns due to the particular interaction with enamel.
publisher Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto
publishDate 2011
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-64402011000200006
work_keys_str_mv AT hipolitoviniciusdi microtensilebondstrengthtestandfailureanalysistoassessbondingcharacteristicsofdifferentadhesionapproachestogroundversusungroundenamel
AT alonsorobertacarolinebruschi microtensilebondstrengthtestandfailureanalysistoassessbondingcharacteristicsofdifferentadhesionapproachestogroundversusungroundenamel
AT carrilhomarcelarochadeoliveira microtensilebondstrengthtestandfailureanalysistoassessbondingcharacteristicsofdifferentadhesionapproachestogroundversusungroundenamel
AT anauatenettocamillo microtensilebondstrengthtestandfailureanalysistoassessbondingcharacteristicsofdifferentadhesionapproachestogroundversusungroundenamel
AT sinhoretimarioalexandrecoelho microtensilebondstrengthtestandfailureanalysistoassessbondingcharacteristicsofdifferentadhesionapproachestogroundversusungroundenamel
AT goesmariofernandode microtensilebondstrengthtestandfailureanalysistoassessbondingcharacteristicsofdifferentadhesionapproachestogroundversusungroundenamel
_version_ 1756404496373645312