The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 17 , ISSUE 5 ( May, 2016 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Enamel Wetness Effects on Microshear Bond Strength of Different Bonding Agents (Adhesive Systems): An in vitro Comparative Evaluation Study

Girish Kulkarni, Vinay K Mishra

Citation Information : Kulkarni G, Mishra VK. Enamel Wetness Effects on Microshear Bond Strength of Different Bonding Agents (Adhesive Systems): An in vitro Comparative Evaluation Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016; 17 (5):399-407.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1862

Published Online: 01-05-2016

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2016; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aims

The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of enamel wetness on microshear bond strength using different adhesive systems.

Objectives

To evaluate microshear bond strength of three bonding agents on dry enamel; to evaluate microshear bond strength of three bonding agents on wet enamel; and to compare microshear bond strength of three different bonding agents on dry and wet enamel.

Materials and methods

Sixty extracted noncarious human premolars were selected for this study. Flat enamel surfaces of approximately 3 mm were obtained by grinding the buccal surfaces of premolars with water-cooled diamond disks. This study evaluated one etch-and-rinse adhesive system (Single Bond 2) and two self-etching adhesive systems (Clearfil SE Bond and Xeno-V). The specimens were divided into two groups (n = 30). Group I (dry) was air-dried for 30 seconds and in group II (wet) surfaces were blotted with absorbent paper to remove excess water. These groups were further divided into six subgroups (n = 10) according to the adhesives used. The resin composite, Filtek Z 250, was bonded to flat enamel surfaces that had been treated with one of the adhesives, following the manufacturer's instructions. After being stored in water at 37°C for 24 hours, bonded specimens were stressed in universal testing machine (Fig. 3) at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The data were evaluated with one-way and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), t-test, and Tukey's Multiple Post hoc tests (α = 0.05).

Results

The two-way ANOVA and Tukey's Multiple Post hoc tests showed significant differences among adhesive systems, but wetness did not influence microshear bond strength (p = 0.1762). The one-way ANOVA and t-test showed that the all-in-one adhesive (Xeno-V) was the only material influenced by the presence of water on the enamel surface. Xeno-V showed significantly higher microshear bond strength when the enamel was kept wet. Single Bond 2 adhesive showed significantly higher microshear bond strength as compared with Xeno-V adhesive but no significant difference when compared with Clearfil SE Bond adhesive in dry enamel. Single Bond 2 adhesive showed no significant difference in microshear bond strength as compared with self-etching adhesive systems (Clearfil SE Bond and Xeno-V), when the enamel was kept wet.

Conclusion

From the findings of the results, it was concluded that self-etching adhesives were not negatively affected by the presence of water on the enamel surface.

Clinical significance

The all-in-one adhesive showed different behavior depending on whether the enamel surface was dry or wet. So the enamel surface should not be desiccated, when self-etching adhesives are used.

How to cite this article

Kulkarni G, Mishra VK. Enamel Wetness Effects on Microshear Bond Strength of Different Bonding Agents (Adhesive Systems): An in vitro Comparative Evaluation Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(5):399-407.


PDF Share
  1. Essentials of oral histology and embryology: a clinical approach. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Mosby, Elsevier; 2006.
  2. Fundamentals of Operative Dentistry: A Contemporary Approach. Chicago, IL: Quintessence Pub. Co.; 2006.
  3. How the introduction of the acid etch technique revolutionized dental practice. J Am Dent Assoc 2013 Sep;144(9):990-994.
  4. The promotion of adhesion by the infiltration of monomers in to tooth substrates. J Biomed Mater Res 1982 May;16(3):265-273.
  5. Influence of enamel wetness on resin composite restorations using various dentin bonding agents: Part I – effects on marginal quality and enamel micro crack formation. J Dent 2006 May;34(5):343-351.
  6. Effect of evaporation of solvents from one step self etching adhesives. J Adhes Dent 2008 Feb;10(1):35-39.
  7. Interpretation of bond failure through conversion and residual solvent measurements and Weibull analysis of flexural and microtensile bond strength of binding agents. Dent Mater 2005 Apr;21(4):354-364.
  8. Analysis of the dentin resin interface by use of laser Raman spectroscopy. Dent Mater 2002 Dec;18(8):576-580.
  9. Current aspects on bonding effectiveness and stability in adhesive dentistry. Aust Dent J 2011 Jun;56(Suppl 1):31-44.
  10. Oral fluid contamination of etched enamel surfaces: An SEM study. J Am Dent Assoc 1985 Mar;110(3):329-332.
  11. The effect of the air blowing step on the technique sensitivity of four different adhesive systems. J Dent 2006 Mar;34(3):237-244.
  12. Comparison of microshear bond strengths of four self etching bonding systems to enamel using two test methods. Aust Dent J 2006 Sep;51(3):252-257.
  13. An ultra structural study of the influence of acidity of self etching primers and smear layer thickness on bonding to intact dentin. J Adhes Dent 2000 Summer;2(2):83-98.
  14. Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives: a systematic review of current clinical trials. Dent Mater 2005 Sep;21(9):864-881.
  15. Why do shear bond tests pull out dentin? J Dent Res 1997 Jun;76(6):1298-1307.
  16. A critique of bond strength measurements. J Dent 1989 Apr;17(2):61-67.
  17. Tensile bond strength to and SEM evaluation of ground and intact enamel surfaces. J Dent 1999 Sep;27(7):523-530.
  18. Bond strength of current adhesive systems on intact and ground enamel. J Esthet Restor Dent 2004;16(2):107-116.
  19. The prismless outer layer of deciduous and permanent enamel. Arch Oral Biol 1966 Jan;11(1):41-48.
  20. Acid etch patterns on the buccal surface of human permanent teeth. Arch Oral Biol 2002 May;47(5):407-412.
  21. Influence of self etching primer on the resin adhesion to enamel and dentin. Am J Dent 2001 Aug;14(4):205-210.
  22. Bond strength of two adhesive systems to primary and permanent enamel . Oper Dent 2002 Jul-Aug;27(4):403-409.
  23. Micro shearbond strength of different adhesives to human dental enamel. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2011 Spring;35(3):301-304.
  24. Micro shear bond strength of adhesive resins to enamel at different relative humidity conditions. Dent Mater J 2013;32(3):468-475.
  25. The clinical performance of adhesives. J Dent 1998 Jan;26(1):1-20.
  26. Fatigue testing of enamel bonds with self etch and total etch adhesive systems. Dent Mater 2006 Nov;22(11):981-987.
  27. Effect of delayed activation of light cured resin composites on bonding of “All in One” adhesives. J Adhes Dent 2001 Fall;3(3):207-225.
  28. Influence of enamel wetness on composite restorations using various dentin bonding agents: Part II – Effects on shear bond strength. J Dent 2006 May;34(5):352-361.
  29. The bonding of composite resin to moist enamel. Br Dent J 2001 Aug;191(3):148-150.
  30. Comparative study of adhesive performance of functional monomers. J Dent Res 2004 Jun;83(6):454-458.
  31. Shear bond strength of one etch and rinse and five self etching dental adhesives when used by six operators. Acta Odontol Scand 2008 Aug;66(4):243-249.
  32. Single step adhesives are permeable membranes. J Dent 2002 Sep-Nov;30(7-8):371-382.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.