Evaluation of Bond Strength of Self-Etching Adhesives Having Different pH on Primary and Permanent Teeth Dentin

Effect of bioactive glass particles on mechanical and adhesion properties of resin cements

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to evaluate the mechanical and adhesive properties of three different resin cements with bioactive glass (BAG) incorporated in two different ratios.

METHODS

BAG was added to different resin cements (3M Rely-X Ultimate, GC Link Ace, and GC Link Force) in different ratios (5% and 10% by weight). The three-point flexural strength, microhardness, and bond strength properties were evaluated. The fracture types of the groups were then analyzed using a stereo microscope. The data were analyzed using a multifactorial analysis of variance and Tukey's post-hoc tests (α < 0.05).

RESULTS

The addition of BAG reduced the flexural strength of the resin cements (P < 0.05).The effect of BAG addition on the Vickers microhardness value was significantly different for each cement group (P < 0.05). In addition, with the exception of the GC link force group (10% BAG addition), the BAG addition decreased the bond strength of cements to dentin in all the groups (P = 0.171).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study confirmed that different resin cements comprising different ratios of BAG exhibited different flexural strength, hardness, and bond-strength properties. Since the bond strength values increased with the addition of 10% BAG in the GC Link Force cement group, the effects of different BAG compositions could be worth investigating in future studies.

The Classification and Selection of Adhesive Agents; an Overview for the General Dentist

Adhesive agents are essential to most restorative procedures used in everyday practice. Depending on the clinical situation, the dentist will choose among a rapidly evolving variety of adhesive agents (bonding agents). Due to the availability of many adhesive agents, appropriate selection can take time and effort. Typically, a practitioner relies more on marketing and experience than in-depth material knowledge. The classification of adhesive agents may need to be clarified and easier to remember due to its lack of relevance to clinical procedures. This paper reviews the published literature retrieved from PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus by using specific keywords "adhesive agents", "classification", "dentin", "enamel", "universal", "self-etch", "etch-and-rinse", and "bonding". The titles and abstracts were screened, and the relevant literature was retrieved. The list of references from each identified article was examined to find other potentially relevant articles. Adhesive agents can be classified as etch-and-rinse, self-etch, or "multi-mode" according to their approach to interacting with the smear layer, and each approach can be further classified according to the number of clinical steps required during application. This article reviews the classification of current adhesive agents and discusses the properties that make a specific adhesive agent the optimal choice for a particular clinical indication. The review will assist the general dentist in understanding the various types of available adhesive agents and how they function. Overall, the review will facilitate decision-making and allow the selection of appropriate materials.

Micro Push-Out Bond Strength of Resin Composite to Dentin in Primary Dentition Using Three Universal Adhesives with Different pH: An In Vitro Study

To evaluate the bond strength of different universal adhesives on deciduous tooth dentineand their relationship with the composition and potential of hydrogen (pH). Methods: An in vitromicro push-out test on 150 samples (n = 50) per group per adhesive, namely, Adhese Universal(ADH; Ivoclar Vivadent), Futurabond U (FUT; Voco GmbH) (Test), and Scotchbond Universal withpre-conditioning (SCO; 3M) (Control), to record bond strength (BS) and type of adhesive failure.Results: The results of the different adhesives (megapascals (MPa)) varied, showing no statisticalsignificance. The corresponding averages are in MPa: ADH, 13.66 2.81; FUT, 14.48 2.88; SCO,14.98 3.96. Additionally, the frequency of type of failure was as follows: mixed (60.7%), adhesive(27.3%), and cohesive (12%). Conclusions: SCO, with a pH of 2.7, showed greater resistance tofracture, while FUT, with a pH of 2.3 and no pre-conditioning, approached the same values, being aone-step adhesive. No relationship was found between failure and type of adhesive.

Effect of Tribochemical Coating on Composite Repair Strength

Clinical Relevance

Tribochemical treatment of existing composite surfaces is highly effective for composite repair. When repairing an old composite restoration, the clinician should try to use the same composite originally used for the restoration. If the information about the original restoration is not known, a composite with strong mechanical properties should be used for the repair restoration.

SUMMARY

This study evaluated the effect of tribochemical coating on composite-to-composite repair interfacial fracture toughness (iFT). Sixty beam-shaped specimens (21×4×3 ± 0.2 mm) were prepared with a nanofill composite (Filtek Supreme Ultra [FSU]) and a nanohybrid composite (Clearfil Majesty ES-2 [CME]) and aged for 50,000 thermocycles (5°C-55°C, 20-second dwell time) and then sectioned in half. The resulting 120 hemispecimens (60 for each composite) were randomly assigned to different repair methods (n=10): universal adhesive (Clearfil Universal Bond Quick [CUB]), sand-blasting followed by CUB, or tribochemical coating (CoJet, CoJet sand, Espe-Sil, and Visio-Bond). The repair surface was prepared with a diamond bur (Midwest #471271), rinsed, and dried. Each aged composite brand (FSU, CME) was repaired with either the same composite or the opposite composite. All adhesives and composites were light cured with a high-irradiance LED curing light (Elipar DeepCure-S). After postrepair storage in 100% humidity and at 37°C for 24 hours, iFT was measured as KIc (MPa m½). Data were analyzed for statistical significance using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey honest significant difference post hoc test (α=0.05). Regardless of the substrate composite, ANOVA showed significant differences for surface treatment (p&lt;0.0001) and repair composite (p&lt;0.0001). Mean iFT values (SD) ranged from 0.91 (0.10) MPa·m½ to 2.68 (0.12) MPa·m½. Repairs made with FSU after CoJet resulted in significantly higher iFT (FSU: 2.68 MPa·m½; CME: 2.21 MPa·m½) when compared to the other experimental groups. The repair iFT was higher with CoJet treatment and when the nanofill composite FSU was used as the repair composite.