• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.5 no.3
• /
• pp.305-311
• /
• 2013

PURPOSE. Over the past years, the adhesion of fiber posts luted with simplified adhesive systems has been a matter of great interest. The aim of this study was to assess the post retentive potential of a self-adhesive resin cement using different adhesive systems to compare the push-out bond strengths of fiber posts. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The post spaces of 56 mandibular premolar roots were prepared and divided into 4 experimental groups and further divided into 2 subgroups according to testing time (n=7). The fiber posts (Rely X Fiber Post) were luted with a self-adhesive resin cement (RelyX Unicem) and one of the following adhesive systems: no adhesive, a total-etch adhesive resin (Single Bond), a two-step self-etch adhesive resin (Clearfil SE Bond) and a one-step self-etch adhesive resin (Clearfil S3 Bond). Each root was cut horizontally, and 1.5 mm thick six root segments were prepared. Push-out tests were performed after one week or three months (0.5 mm/min). Statistical analysis were performed with three-way ANOVA (${\alpha}$=.05). RESULTS. Cervical root segments showed higher bond strength values than middle segments. Adhesive application increased the bond strength. For one week group, the total-etch adhesive resin Single Bond showed higher bond strength than the self-adhesive resin cement RelyX Unicem applied without adhesive resin at middle region. For 3 months group, the two-step self-etch adhesive resin Clearfil SE Bond showed the highest bond strength for both regions. Regarding the time considered, Clearfil SE Bond 3 months group showed higher bond strength values than one week group. CONCLUSION. Using the adhesive resins in combination with the self-adhesive resin cement improves the bond strengths. The bond strength values of two-step self-etch adhesive resin Clearfil SE Bond improved as time passes.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.37 no.3
• /
• pp.155-159
• /
• 2012

Objectives: To investigate the effect of dentin moisture degree and air-drying time on dentin-bond strength of two different one-step self-etching adhesive systems. Materials and Methods: Twenty-four human third molars were used for microtensile bond strength testing of G-Bond and Clearfil $S^3$ Bond. The dentin surface was either blot-dried or air-dried before applying these adhesive agents. After application of the adhesive agent, three different air drying times were evaluated: 1, 5, and 10 sec. Composite resin was build up to 4 mm thickness and light cured for 40 sec with 2 separate layers. Then the tooth was sectioned and trimmed to measure the microtensile bond strength using a universal testing machine. The measured bond strengths were analyzed with three-way ANOVA and regression analysis was done (p = 0.05). Results: All three factors, materials, dentin wetness and air drying time, showed significant effect on the microtensile bond strength. Clearfil $S^3$ Bond, dry dentin surface and 10 sec air drying time showed higher bond strength. Conclusions: Within the limitation of this experiment, air drying time after the application of the one-step self-etching adhesive agent was the most significant factor affecting the bond strength, followed by the material difference and dentin moisture before applying the adhesive agent.

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.20 no.3 s.32
• /
• pp.583-591
• /
• 1990

If the bond strength is sufficient to resist orthodontic force, orthodontic brackets can be bonded to restorations. Orthodontic brackets were bonded to composite resin and glass ionomer cement restorations with no-mix adhesive or glass ionomer cement. The shear bond strength of adhesives bonded to restorations was studied in vitro. Orthodontic brackets were bonded to 10 extracted natural teeth, 40 composite resin restorations and 40 glass ionomer restorations. The surfaces of composite resin restorations were roughened or applied with bonding agent (Scothbond) after surface roughening. The surfaces of glass ionomer cement restorations were conditioned with acid etching or applied with Scotchbond to etched surface. The adhesive was no-mix resin or glass ionomer cement. The shear bond strength was measured. The results were as follows: 1. Orthodontic brackets could be bonded to composite resin restorations effectively as they could be bonded to acid etched enamel with no-mix adhesive. The shear bond strength was sufficient to resist orthodontic force and was not affected by bonding agent greatly. 2. The shear bond strength of no-mix adhesive bonded to acid etched glass ionomer cement restorations was sufficient to resist orthodontic force. However. the fracture risk of glass ionomer cement restorations was increased during debonding. The bonding agent couldn't increase the shear bond strength greatly. 3. The shear bond strength of glass ionomer cement bonded to glass ionomer cement restorations was lower than that of no-mix adhesive. The shear bond strength was sufficient to resist orthodontic force and was greatly decreased by bonding agent. 4. The shear bond strength of glass ionomer cement bonded to composite resin restorations was too low to resist orthodontic force.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.32 no.5
• /
• pp.445-458
• /
• 2007

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the bond strength of a new Single step system with different curing mode composites, and to evaluate the effect of the intermediate resins which have different hydrophilicity on bonding ability by means of the micro shear bond testing and TEM examination for the adhesive interface. The adhesive used in this study was an experimental single step system (Bisco Inc., Schaumburg IL). Experimental groups were produced by using six kinds of intermediate resin having different hydrophilicity that was hydrophilic, hydrophobic and most hydrophobic resin and as filled or not after applying adhesive. Each experimental group was further divided into two subgroups whether the adhesive was light cured or not. Dual cured composite (Bis Core, Bisco Ltd., Schaumburg, IL) was placed on the adhesive layer as light cure or self cure mode. The results or bond strength were statistically analyzed using one way ANOVA and multiple comparisons are made using Tukey's test at ${\alpha}\;<\;0.05$ level. The results of this study were as follows ; 1. The application of intermediate resin did not increase the bond strength for light cured composite. 2. The bond strength of an experimental adhesive with self cured composite was significantly increased by the application of intermediate resin layer. 3. The bond strength of adhesive was irrespective of the cure or not of itself before intermediate resin layer applied. 4. As applied hydrophilic resin layer was, the initial bond strength was higher than both hydrophobic and most hydrophobic one used but there was no significance. Using a single step adhesive with dual/self cured composite, the incompatibility between both of them should be solved by the application of intermediate hydrophobic resin to reduce the adhesive permeability. However, Single step adhesive can be used in the light cured composite restoration without any decrease of the initial bond strength.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.633-640
• /
• 1994

The tensile bond strength to dentin was measured for three glass-ionomer cement and composite resin combinations: two light-curing glass-ionomer cements(Vitrebond and XR - Ionomer) and one traditional glass - ionomer cement(Ketac - Bond), two adhesive systems(Scotchbond, and XR - Bonding System), and a corresponding composite resin. The bond strength of this "sandwich" was also compared with that of the same cements used in bulk. Vitredbond showed a significantly higher bond strength in bulk than did the other two cements. Of the sandwiches, the XR - Iomomer and XR - Bond combination showed a bond strength significantly higher than that of the Vitrebond and Scotchbond or Ketac- bond and Scotchbond combination. The fracture of the bond was mainly adhesive for Vitrebond, cohesive for XR - Ionomer when used in bulk and adhesive - cohesive when used in a sandwich, and cohesive for Ketac-Bond.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.8 no.4
• /
• pp.275-284
• /
• 2016

PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of different surface treatment methods on the microtensile bond strength of resin cement to resin nanoceramic (RNC). MATERIALS AND METHODS. RNC onlays (Lava Ultimate) (n=30) were treated using air abrasion with and without a universal adhesive, or HF etching followed by a universal adhesive with and without a silane coupling agent, or tribological silica coating with and without a universal adhesive, and divided into 6 groups. Onlays were luted with resin cement to dentin surfaces. A microtensile bond strength test was performed and evaluated by one-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD test (${\alpha}$=.05). A nanoscratch test, field emission scanning electron microscopy, and energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy were used for micromorphologic analysis (${\alpha}$=.05). The roughness and elemental proportion were evaluated by Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS. Tribological silica coating showed the highest roughness, followed by air abrasion and HF etching. After HF etching, the RNC surface presented a decrease in oxygen, silicon, and zirconium ratio with increasing carbon ratio. Air abrasion with universal adhesive showed the highest bond strength followed by tribological silica coating with universal adhesive. HF etching with universal adhesive showed the lowest bond strength. CONCLUSION. An improved understanding of the effect of surface treatment of RNC could enhance the durability of resin bonding when used for indirect restorations. When using RNC for restoration, effective and systemic surface roughening methods and an appropriate adhesive are required.

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.28 no.6 s.71
• /
• pp.955-974
• /
• 1998

The purpose of the present study was to seek bracket-adhesive combinations which have adequate bond strength with no enamel and bracket fracture. The shear bond strengths were measured, the sites of failure and the enamel damage were investigated and the peripheral sealing and adaptation between enamel surface, bonding adhesive and bracket were evaluated. 240 noncarious human premolars were divided into twenty four groups of ten teeth. Shear bond strengths of each group were determined in an universal testing machine after two days passed and the debonded specimens were inspected to determine the predominant bond failure sites. To evaluate peripheral sealing and adaption between enamel surface, adhesive and bracket, each specimen was cut longitudinally into two halves which included the midsection of the bracket, adhesive and enamel and exmined in scanning electron microscope. Six different types of brackets were bonded to the tooth with four different type of adhesives. Six different types of brackets were Image, Plastic, Crystaline, Fascination, Transcend 2000 and metal bracket and four different adhesives were No-mix, Light-Bond, OrthoLC and Superbond C&B. From this study, it may be concluded that (1) The mean shear bond strength varied from a high of 36.58 Kg (410.07 Kg/$cm^2$) with the Fascination-Light Bond combination group to a low of 8.93 Kg (75.51 Kg/$cm^2$) with theImage-OrthoLC combination group. When using OrthoLC as adhesive, the mean shear bond strength was significantly lower than that of other combination groups, (2) Regardless of adhesives, the mean shear bond strength of Fascination brackets was relatively high whereas Plastic and Image brackets had low shear bonding strength. The shear bond strength of Crystaline bracket and Transcend 2m was relatively equal to or lower than that of metal bracket, (3) There was a correlation between bond strength, enamel damage and bracket fracture. As the shear bond strength was increased, the rate of enamel damage and bracket fracture were increased, (4) The combination groups that use OrthoLC as adhesive were debonded in shear stress without enamel fracture and bracket fracture, whereas the combination groups that use Superbond C&B as adhesive experienced a relative high enamel fracture rate and bracket fracture rate, (5) Peripheral sealing and adaptation between enamel-adhesive-bracket were relatively good when using Light-Bond or No-mix as adhesive. Regardless of adhesives, adaptation between bracket-adhesive were relatively good in Ceramic brackets, (6) The combination groups which had adequate bonding strength with no enamel and bracket fracture were Crystaline-No mix, Crystaline-Light Bond, Crystaline-OrthoLC, metal-No mix, metal-Light Bond and metal-OrthoLC combination groups.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.44 no.4
• /
• pp.45.1-45.10
• /
• 2019

Objectives: Self-adhesive resin cements contain functional monomers that enable them to adhere to the tooth structure without a separate adhesive or etchant. One of the most stable functional monomers used for chemical bonding to calcium in hydroxyapatite is 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (10-MDP). The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of the10-MDP concentration on the bond strength and physical properties of self-adhesive resin cements. Materials and Methods: We used experimental resin cements containing 3 different concentrations of 10-MDP: 3.3 wt% (RC1), 6.6 wt% (RC2), or 9.9 wt% (RC3). The micro-tensile bond strength of each resin cement to dentin and a hybrid resin block (Estenia C&B, Kuraray Noritake Dental) was measured, and the fractured surface morphology was analyzed. Further, the flexural strength of the resin cements was measured using the three-point bending test. The water sorption and solubility of the cements following 30 days of immersion in water were measured. Results: The bond strength of RC2 was significantly higher than that of RC1. There was no significant difference between the bond strength of RC2 and that of RC3. The water sorption of RC3 was higher than that of any other cement. There were no significant differences in the three-point bending strength or water solubility among all three types of cements. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, it is suggested that 6.6 wt% 10-MDP showed superior properties than 3.3 wt% or 9.9 wt% 10-MDP in self-adhesive resin cement.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.39 no.1
• /
• pp.12-16
• /
• 2014

Objectives: Extensively destroyed teeth are commonly restored with composite resin before cavity preparation for indirect restorations. The longevity of the restoration can be related to the proper bonding of the resin cement to the composite. This study aimed to evaluate the microshear bond strength of two self-adhesive resin cements to composite resin. Material and Methods: Composite discs were subject to one of six different surface pretreatments: none (control), 35% phosphoric acid etching for 30 seconds (PA), application of silane (silane), PA + silane, PA + adhesive, or PA + silane + adhesive (n = 6). A silicone mold containing a cylindrical orifice ($1mm^2$ diameter) was placed over the composite resin. RelyX Unicem (3M ESPE) or BisCem (Bisco Inc.) self-adhesive resin cement was inserted into the orifices and light-cured. Self-adhesive cement cylinders were submitted to shear loading. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (p < 0.05). Results: Independent of the cement used, the PA + Silane + Adhesive group showed higher microshear bond strength than those of the PA and PA + Silane groups. There was no difference among the other treatments. Unicem presented higher bond strength than BisCem for all experimental conditions. Conclusions: Pretreatments of the composite resin surface might have an effect on the bond strength of self-adhesive resin cements to this substrate.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.40 no.3
• /
• pp.202-208
• /
• 2015

Objectives: This study determined the effect of the air-stream application time and the bonding technique on the dentin bond strength of adhesives with different solvents. Furthermore, the content and volatilization rate of the solvents contained in the adhesives were also evaluated. Materials and Methods:Three adhesive systems with different solvents (Stae, SDI, acetone; XP Bond, Dentsply De Trey, butanol; Ambar, FGM, ethanol) were evaluated. The concentrations and evaporation rates of each adhesive were measured using an analytical balance. After acid-etching and rinsing, medium occlusal dentin surfaces of human molars were kept moist (conventional) or were treated with 10% sodium hypochlorite for deproteinization. After applying adhesives over the dentin, slight air-stream was applied for 10, 30 or 60 sec. Composite cylinders were built up and submitted to shear testing. The data were submitted to ANOVA and Tukey's test (${\alpha}=0.05$). Results: Stae showed the highest solvent content and Ambar the lowest. Acetone presented the highest evaporation rate, followed by butanol. Shear bond strengths were significantly affected only by the factors of 'adhesive' and 'bonding technique' (p < 0.05), while the factor 'duration of air-stream' was not significant. Deproteinization of dentin increased the bond strength (p < 0.05). Stae showed the lowest bond strength values (p < 0.05), while no significant difference was observed between XP Bond and Ambar. Conclusions: Despite the differences in content and evaporation rate of the solvents, the duration of air-stream application did not affect the bond strength to dentin irrespective of the bonding technique.