The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 25 , ISSUE 4 ( April, 2024 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Assessment of the Efficacy and Bond Strength of Different Dentin-bonding Agents with Adhesives on Primary Teeth: An In Vitro Study

Adel S Alqarni, Abdulhamid Al Ghwainem

Keywords : Adhesive, Dentin-bonding agents, Primary teeth, Shear bond strength

Citation Information : Alqarni AS, Al Ghwainem A. Assessment of the Efficacy and Bond Strength of Different Dentin-bonding Agents with Adhesives on Primary Teeth: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024; 25 (4):342-345.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3658

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 14-06-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and strength of three various dentin-bonding agents used with adhesives on primary teeth. Materials and methods: The study used 80 recently extracted, healthy human maxillary anterior primary teeth that had undergone physiologic resorption, or over-retention. Teeth were cut to expose a flat dentin surface at a depth of 1.5 mm. All samples were divided into four groups (20 samples in each group) as follows: Group I—Control group, Group II—Primary teeth bonding with 6th-generation bonding agent, Group III—Primary teeth bonding with 7th-generation bonding agent, Group IV—Primary teeth bonding with 8th-generation bonding agent. All of the samples’ dentinal surfaces were covered with composite resin using a Teflon mold after adhesive had been applied. A universal testing machine (INSTRON) was used to assess the shear bond strength. Data were collected and statistically analyzed. Results: The maximum mean shear bond strength was found in 8th-generation bonding agent (30.76 ± 0.16), followed by 7th-generation bonding agent (26.08 ± 0.21), 6th-generation bonding agent (25.32 ± 0.06), and control group (6.18 ± 0.09). Statistically significant difference was found between the three different bonding agents (p < 0.001). Conclusion: On conclusion, the 8th-generation bonding agent demonstrated a greater shear bond strength to dentin than the 7th and 6th-generation bonding agent. Clinical significance: The emergence of different bonding techniques to the market improves the durability and quality of restorations. An effective bonding to the tooth would also reduce bacterial penetration, marginal microleakage, possibility of pulpal inflammation preserve tooth structure, and postoperative sensitivity by allowing less cavity preparation.


PDF Share
  1. Van Meerbeek B, Vargas S, Inoue S, et al. Adhesive and cement to promote preservation dentistry. Oper Dent 2001(Suppl. 6):119–144. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298110798_Adhesives_and_cements_to_promote_preservation_dentistry.
  2. Yaseen SM, Subba Reddy VV. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of two self-etching adhesives (sixth and seventh generation) on dentin of primary and permanent teeth: An in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2009;27(1):33–38. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.50814.
  3. Silveira de Araújo C, Incerti da Silva T, Ogliari FA, et al. Microleakage of seven adhesive systems in enamel and dentin. J Contemp Dent Pract 2006;7(5):26–33. PMID: 17091137.
  4. Kamble SS, Kandasamy B, Thillaigovindan R, et al. In vitro comparative evaluation of tensile bond strength of 6th, 7th and 8th generation dentin bonding agents. J Int Oral Health 2015;7(5):41–43. PMID: 26028901.
  5. Joseph P, Yadav C, Satheesh K, et al. Comparative evaluation of the bonding efficacy of sixth, seventh and eight generation bonding agents: An in vitro study. Int Res J Pharm 2013;4(9):143. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.124119.
  6. Pashley DH, Tay FR. Aggressiveness of contemporary self-etching adhesives. Part II: Etching effects on unground enamel. Dent Mater 2001;17(5):430–444. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(00)00104-4.
  7. Shafigh E, Mahdavi MR, Nasiri R. Evaluation and comparison of micro shear of 5th, 7th and 8th generation bonding agents in dentin (in vitro study). Arch Pharma Pract 2020;11(S1):145–150. Available from: https://archivepp.com/storage/models/article/Zz6wTse9CoV 6rRVAvh2xKw3lai0epDy35dmr66HY1nNZ98oe7ZruvR1lcULv/evaluation-and-comparison-of-micro-shear-of-5th-7th-and-8th-generation-bonding-agents-in-dentin-in.pdf.
  8. Casgrande L, Brayner R, Sarmento Barata J, et al. Cervical microleakage in composite restorations of primary teeth – In-vitro study. J Dent 2005;33;627–632. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2004.12.006.
  9. Nirwan M, Nigam AG, Marwah N, et al. A comparative evaluation of retention of pit and fissure sealant bonded using sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-generation adhesives: An in vivo study. J Indian Soc Pedodont Prevent Dent 2017;35(4):359. DOI: 10.4103/JISPPD.JISPPD_74_17.
  10. Pashley EL, Agee KA, Pashley DH, et al. Effects of one versus two applications of an unfilled, all-in-one adhesive on dentine bonding. J Dent 2002;30(2–3):83–90. DOI: 10.1016/s0300-5712(02)00002-7.
  11. Kerby RE, Knobloch LA, Clelland N, et al. Microtensile bond strengths of one-step and self-etching adhesive systems. Oper Dent 2005;30(2):195–200. PMID: 15853105.
  12. El Sayed HY, Abdalla AI, Shalby ME, et al. Effect of thermocycling on the micro-shear bond strength of solvent free and solvent containing self-etch adhesives to dentin. Tanta Dental J 2015;12(1):28–34. DOI: 10.1016/j.tdj.2014.09.001.
  13. Can Say E, Nakajima M, Senawongse P, et al. Microtensile bond strength of a filled vs unfilled adhesive to dentin using self-etch and total-etch technique. J Dent 2006;34(4):283–291. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2005.07.003.
  14. Solhi L, Atai M, Nodehi A, et al. Poly(acrylic acid) graf ted montmorillonite as novel fillers for dental adhesives: Synthesis, characterization and properties of the adhesive. Dent Mater 2012;28(4):369–377. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2011.11.010.
  15. Wahab FK, Shaini FJ, Morgano SM. The effect of thermocycling on microleakage of several commercially available composite class V restorations in vitro. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90(2):168–174. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(03)00300-7.
  16. Kim JS, Cho BH, Lee IB, et al. Effect of the hydrophilic nanofiller loading on the mechanical properties and the microtensile bond strength of an ethanol-based one-bottle dentin adhesive. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2005;72(2):284–291. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.30153.
  17. Chauhan U, Dewan R, Goyal NG. Comparative evaluation of bond strength of fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth generations of dentin bonding agents: An in vitro study. J Oper Dent Endod 2020;5(2):69–73. DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_635_19.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.