• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.32 no.3
• /
• pp.169-179
• /
• 2007

This study was to compare the microshear bond strength $({\mu}SBS)$ of light- and chemically cured composites to enamel coupled with four 2-step self-etch adhesives and also to evaluate the incompatibility between 2-step self-etch adhesives and chemically cured composite resin. Crown segments of extracted human molars were cut mesiodistally, and a 1 mm thickness of specimen was made. They were assigned to four groups by adhesives used: SE group (Clearfil SE Bond) AdheSE group (AdheSE), Tyrian group (Tyrian SPE/One-Step Plus), and Contax group (Contax) Each adhesive was applied to a cut enamel surface as per the manufacturer's instruction. Light-cured (Filtek Z250) or chemically cured composite (Luxacore Smartmix Dual) was bonded to the enamel of each specimen using a Tygon tube. After storage in distilled water for 24 hours, the bonded specimens were subjected to ${\mu}SBS$ testing with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/minute. The mean ${\mu}SBS$ (n=20 for each group) was statistically compared using two-way ANOVA, Tukey HSD, and t test at 95% level. Also the interface of enamel and composite was evaluated under FE-SEM. The results of this study were as follows ; 1. The ${\mu}SBS$ of the SE Bond group to the enamel was significantly higher than that of the AdheSE group, the Tyrian group, and the Contax group in both the light-cured and the chemically cured composite resin (p < 0.05). 2. There was not a significant difference among the hdheSE group, the Tyrian group, and the Contax group in both the light-cured and the chemically cured composite resin. 3. The ${\mu}SBS$ of the light-cured composite resin was significantly higher than that of the chemically cured composite resin when same adhesive was applied to the enamel (p < 0.05). 4. The interface of enamel and all 2-step self-etch adhesives showed close adaptation, and so the incompatibility of the chemically cured composite resin did not show.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.1-8
• /
• 2007

This study compared the microshear bond strength (${\mu}SBS$) of light-cured and dual-cured composites to enamel bonded with three self-etching adhesives. Crown segments of extracted human molars were cut mesiodistally, and 1 mm thickness of specimen was made. They were assigned to three groups by used adhesives: Xeno group (Xeno III), Adper group (Adper Prompt L-Pop), and AQ group (AQ Bond). Each adhesive was applied to cut enamel surface as per manufacturer's instruction. Light-cured (Filtek Z 250) or dual-cured composite (Luxacore) was bonded to enamel of each specimen using Tygon tube. After storage in distilled water for 24 hours, the bonded specimens were subjected to ${\mu}SBS$ testing with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/minute. The mean ${\mu}SBS$ (n = 20 for each group) was statistically compared using two-way ANOVA, Tukey HSD, and t test at the 0.05 probability level, The results of this study were as follows ; 1. The ${\mu}SBS$ of light-cured composite was significantly higher than that of dual-cured composite when same adhesive was applied to enamel. 2. For Z 250, the ${\mu}SBS$ of AQ group ($9.95{\pm}2.51 MPa$) to enamel was significantly higher than that of Adper soup ($6.74{\pm}1.80 MPa$), but not significantly different with Xeno group ($7.73{\pm}2.01 MPa$). 3. For Luxacore, the ${\mu}SBS$ of Xeno group ($5.19{\pm}1.32\;MPa$) to enamel was significantly higher than that of Adper group ($3.41{\pm}1.19\;MPa$), but not significantly different with AQ group ($4.50{\pm}0.96\;MPa$).