Bond strength and interfacial morphology of adhesives to primary teeth dentin

Isabel Cadroy, Juan R. Boj, Franklin Garcia-Godoy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purposes: To evaluate (1) the shear bond strength to the dentin of primary teeth and failure site of hydrophilic dentin bonding agents, (2) the interfacial micromorphology of these adhesives on primary teeth. Materials and Methods: Seventy-six primary noncarious molars stored in distilled water were obtained. The teeth were cleaned with pumice and a rubber cup. The mesio-buccal surface of the teeth was ground flat with hand pressure with a series of SiC paper ending with the 600 grit to provide a uniform surface on superficial dentin to which the adhesives and resin composite could be applied. After preparing the dentin surface, the teeth were stored in distilled water for 48 hours. They were then rinsed and dried with compressed air and divided at random into four groups of 16 specimens each: Group 1: Dentastic; Group 2: One-Step; Group 3: Prime & Bond 2.0; Group 4: Compoglass SCA. Z100 resin was used in all groups. All specimens were thermocycled (500x) and sheared in an Instron machine. After shear testing, the debonding sites of all samples were examined with a stereomicroscope and selected samples were also examined with the scanning electron microscope. Three additional samples per group were used to evaluate the resin adaptation to dentin. Results: The results in MPa were: Dentastic 19.62 (4.67); One-Step 11.24 (3.67), Prime & Bond 22.38 (6.47), Compoglass SCA 18.88 (4.04). ANOVA (P<0.0001) revealed that there was a significant difference between the groups. The Student-Newman-Keuls test (P<0.05) showed no statistically significant difference between Dentastic, Prime & Bond and Compoglass SCA. However, these three groups were statistically significantly higher than One Step. In the Dentastic group, 14 of 16 samples revealed resin cohesive failure (resin fracture) while two of 16 displayed dentin cohesive failure (dentin fracture). In the One Step group, 15 samples failed at the resin and one sample showed dentin cohesive failure. In the Prime & Bond group, 12 specimens revealed resin cohesive failure while four displayed dentin cohesive failure. In the Compoglass SCA group, 13 samples had resin cohesive failures while three had dentin cohesive failures. All samples revealed an intimate adaptation to the dentin displaying resin tag formation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)242-246
Number of pages5
JournalAmerican journal of dentistry
Volume10
Issue number5
StatePublished - Dec 1 1997

Fingerprint

Deciduous Tooth
Dentin
Adhesives
Tooth
Dentin-Bonding Agents
Compressed Air
Shear Strength
Water
Composite Resins
Cheek
Rubber
Analysis of Variance
Hand
Electrons
Students
Pressure

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Bond strength and interfacial morphology of adhesives to primary teeth dentin. / Cadroy, Isabel; Boj, Juan R.; Garcia-Godoy, Franklin.

In: American journal of dentistry, Vol. 10, No. 5, 01.12.1997, p. 242-246.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{0b969487506b482780a458593e67486a,
title = "Bond strength and interfacial morphology of adhesives to primary teeth dentin",
abstract = "Purposes: To evaluate (1) the shear bond strength to the dentin of primary teeth and failure site of hydrophilic dentin bonding agents, (2) the interfacial micromorphology of these adhesives on primary teeth. Materials and Methods: Seventy-six primary noncarious molars stored in distilled water were obtained. The teeth were cleaned with pumice and a rubber cup. The mesio-buccal surface of the teeth was ground flat with hand pressure with a series of SiC paper ending with the 600 grit to provide a uniform surface on superficial dentin to which the adhesives and resin composite could be applied. After preparing the dentin surface, the teeth were stored in distilled water for 48 hours. They were then rinsed and dried with compressed air and divided at random into four groups of 16 specimens each: Group 1: Dentastic; Group 2: One-Step; Group 3: Prime & Bond 2.0; Group 4: Compoglass SCA. Z100 resin was used in all groups. All specimens were thermocycled (500x) and sheared in an Instron machine. After shear testing, the debonding sites of all samples were examined with a stereomicroscope and selected samples were also examined with the scanning electron microscope. Three additional samples per group were used to evaluate the resin adaptation to dentin. Results: The results in MPa were: Dentastic 19.62 (4.67); One-Step 11.24 (3.67), Prime & Bond 22.38 (6.47), Compoglass SCA 18.88 (4.04). ANOVA (P<0.0001) revealed that there was a significant difference between the groups. The Student-Newman-Keuls test (P<0.05) showed no statistically significant difference between Dentastic, Prime & Bond and Compoglass SCA. However, these three groups were statistically significantly higher than One Step. In the Dentastic group, 14 of 16 samples revealed resin cohesive failure (resin fracture) while two of 16 displayed dentin cohesive failure (dentin fracture). In the One Step group, 15 samples failed at the resin and one sample showed dentin cohesive failure. In the Prime & Bond group, 12 specimens revealed resin cohesive failure while four displayed dentin cohesive failure. In the Compoglass SCA group, 13 samples had resin cohesive failures while three had dentin cohesive failures. All samples revealed an intimate adaptation to the dentin displaying resin tag formation.",
author = "Isabel Cadroy and Boj, {Juan R.} and Franklin Garcia-Godoy",
year = "1997",
month = "12",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "10",
pages = "242--246",
journal = "American Journal of Dentistry",
issn = "0894-8275",
publisher = "Mosher and Linder, Inc",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Bond strength and interfacial morphology of adhesives to primary teeth dentin

AU - Cadroy, Isabel

AU - Boj, Juan R.

AU - Garcia-Godoy, Franklin

PY - 1997/12/1

Y1 - 1997/12/1

N2 - Purposes: To evaluate (1) the shear bond strength to the dentin of primary teeth and failure site of hydrophilic dentin bonding agents, (2) the interfacial micromorphology of these adhesives on primary teeth. Materials and Methods: Seventy-six primary noncarious molars stored in distilled water were obtained. The teeth were cleaned with pumice and a rubber cup. The mesio-buccal surface of the teeth was ground flat with hand pressure with a series of SiC paper ending with the 600 grit to provide a uniform surface on superficial dentin to which the adhesives and resin composite could be applied. After preparing the dentin surface, the teeth were stored in distilled water for 48 hours. They were then rinsed and dried with compressed air and divided at random into four groups of 16 specimens each: Group 1: Dentastic; Group 2: One-Step; Group 3: Prime & Bond 2.0; Group 4: Compoglass SCA. Z100 resin was used in all groups. All specimens were thermocycled (500x) and sheared in an Instron machine. After shear testing, the debonding sites of all samples were examined with a stereomicroscope and selected samples were also examined with the scanning electron microscope. Three additional samples per group were used to evaluate the resin adaptation to dentin. Results: The results in MPa were: Dentastic 19.62 (4.67); One-Step 11.24 (3.67), Prime & Bond 22.38 (6.47), Compoglass SCA 18.88 (4.04). ANOVA (P<0.0001) revealed that there was a significant difference between the groups. The Student-Newman-Keuls test (P<0.05) showed no statistically significant difference between Dentastic, Prime & Bond and Compoglass SCA. However, these three groups were statistically significantly higher than One Step. In the Dentastic group, 14 of 16 samples revealed resin cohesive failure (resin fracture) while two of 16 displayed dentin cohesive failure (dentin fracture). In the One Step group, 15 samples failed at the resin and one sample showed dentin cohesive failure. In the Prime & Bond group, 12 specimens revealed resin cohesive failure while four displayed dentin cohesive failure. In the Compoglass SCA group, 13 samples had resin cohesive failures while three had dentin cohesive failures. All samples revealed an intimate adaptation to the dentin displaying resin tag formation.

AB - Purposes: To evaluate (1) the shear bond strength to the dentin of primary teeth and failure site of hydrophilic dentin bonding agents, (2) the interfacial micromorphology of these adhesives on primary teeth. Materials and Methods: Seventy-six primary noncarious molars stored in distilled water were obtained. The teeth were cleaned with pumice and a rubber cup. The mesio-buccal surface of the teeth was ground flat with hand pressure with a series of SiC paper ending with the 600 grit to provide a uniform surface on superficial dentin to which the adhesives and resin composite could be applied. After preparing the dentin surface, the teeth were stored in distilled water for 48 hours. They were then rinsed and dried with compressed air and divided at random into four groups of 16 specimens each: Group 1: Dentastic; Group 2: One-Step; Group 3: Prime & Bond 2.0; Group 4: Compoglass SCA. Z100 resin was used in all groups. All specimens were thermocycled (500x) and sheared in an Instron machine. After shear testing, the debonding sites of all samples were examined with a stereomicroscope and selected samples were also examined with the scanning electron microscope. Three additional samples per group were used to evaluate the resin adaptation to dentin. Results: The results in MPa were: Dentastic 19.62 (4.67); One-Step 11.24 (3.67), Prime & Bond 22.38 (6.47), Compoglass SCA 18.88 (4.04). ANOVA (P<0.0001) revealed that there was a significant difference between the groups. The Student-Newman-Keuls test (P<0.05) showed no statistically significant difference between Dentastic, Prime & Bond and Compoglass SCA. However, these three groups were statistically significantly higher than One Step. In the Dentastic group, 14 of 16 samples revealed resin cohesive failure (resin fracture) while two of 16 displayed dentin cohesive failure (dentin fracture). In the One Step group, 15 samples failed at the resin and one sample showed dentin cohesive failure. In the Prime & Bond group, 12 specimens revealed resin cohesive failure while four displayed dentin cohesive failure. In the Compoglass SCA group, 13 samples had resin cohesive failures while three had dentin cohesive failures. All samples revealed an intimate adaptation to the dentin displaying resin tag formation.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031242199&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031242199&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 10

SP - 242

EP - 246

JO - American Journal of Dentistry

JF - American Journal of Dentistry

SN - 0894-8275

IS - 5

ER -