Search

Summary: Purpose: To evaluate the technique sensitivity of four different adhesive systems using different air-blowing pressure. Methods: Four adhesive systems were employed: Clearfil SE Bond [SE] (Kuraray, Japan), G-Bond [GB] (GC Corporation, Japan), Adper Prompt L-Pop [LP] (3M ESPE, USA) and an experimental adhesive, SSB-200 [SSB] (Kuraray, Japan). Twenty-four extracted molars were used. After grinding the coronal enamel surface, the teeth were divided into two equal groups. The first group''s teeth were randomly assigned for bonding with the different adhesives using gentle air-blowing (g). For the teeth of the second group, the four adhesive systems were applied using strong air-blowing (s). After storage overnight in 37°C water, the bonded specimens were sectioned into sticks (1mm×1mm wide), which were subjected to microtensile bond strength testing (μTBS) at a crosshead speed of 1mm/min. The load at failure of each specimen was recorded and the data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests. The surfaces of the fractured specimens were observed using SEM to determine the failure mode. Results: The results of the μTBS test showed that the highest bond strengths tended to be with SE for both gentle and strong air-blowing, and the significantly lowest for SSB with strong air streaming. Comparing the two techniques, significant differences were noted only for SSB-200 (P<0.05). For each material, the SEM evaluation did not show distinct differences in the nature of the fractures between the two techniques, except for SSB-200. Conclusions: The adhesives tested are not technique sensitive, except SSB-200, with regards to the air-blowing step. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Summary: Objectives: To evaluate the effect of double-application of all-in-one adhesives using the micro-shear bond test. Methods: The occlusal surfaces of extracted human third molars were ground perpendicular to the long axis of each tooth to expose a flat dentin surface. Three commercially available and one experimental bonding system were used in this study: Adper Prompt L-Pop (APL, 3M ESPE), REACTMER BOND (RB, Shofu), XENO III (Xeno, Dentsply-Sankin) and newly developed OBF-2 (OB2, Tokuyama Dental). These adhesives were applied on the dentin surfaces by either the manufacturers'' instructions or by an experimental method (single-application or double-application). Resin composite was then placed and light-cured for 40s. After 24h immersion in water, a micro-shear bond test was carried out and the fractured dentin surfaces were observed microscopically. The data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey''s HSD tests (p<0.05). Results: The mean bond strengths of APL, RB, Xeno and OB2 with single-application were 22.7, 28.3, 30.3 and 34.6MPa, respectively. The mean bond strengths of APL, RB, Xeno and OB2 with double-application were 29.5, 27.2, 29.6 and 32.5MPa, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in micro-shear bond strengths between the single- and double-application methods for each adhesive system (p>0.05). The morphological observation of the fractured dentin surfaces revealed differences between the single- and double-application groups especially for APL and OB2. Conclusions: Micro-shear bond strengths of all-in-one adhesives in this study showed no statistically significant differences between the single-application and the double-application method. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]