KACD
Articles
- Page Path
- HOME > Restor Dent Endod > Volume 30(4); 2005 > Article
- Original Article Comparative evaluation of micro-shear bond strength between two different luting methods of resin cement to dentin
- Yoon-Jeong Lee, Sang-Jin Park, Kyoung-Kyu Choi,*
-
J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2005;30(4):-293.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2005.30.4.283
Published online: January 14, 2005
Department of Conservative Dentistry, Division of Dentistry, Graduate School, Kyunghee University
- *Corresponding author: Kyoung-Kyu Choi, Dept. of Conservative Dentistry, Division of Dentistry, Graduate School, Kyunghee University 1, Hoegi Dong, Dongdaemoon Gu, Seoul, Korea, 130-702, Tel: 82-2-958-9337 E-mail: choikkyu@khu.ac.kr
• Received: September 21, 2004 • Revised: April 6, 2005 • Accepted: April 14, 2005
Copyright © 2005 The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
- 727 Views
- 1 Download
Abstract
-
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of dual bonding technique by comparing micro-shear bond strength between two different luting methods of resin cement to tooth dentin. Three dentin bonding systems(All-Bond 2, One-Step, Clearfil SE Bond), two temporary cements (Propac, Freegenol) were used in this study.In groups used conventional luting procedure, dentin surfaces were left untreated. In groups used dual bonding technique, three dentin bonding systems were applied to each dentin surface. All specimens were covered with each temporary cement. The temporary cements were removed and each group was treated using one of three different dentin bonding system. A resin cement was applied to the glass cylinder surface and the cylinder was bonded to the dentin surface. Then, micro-shear bond strength test was performed. For the evaluation of the morphology at the resin/dentin interface, SEM examination was also performed.
Conventional luting procedure showed higher micro-shear bond strengths than dual boning technique. However, there were no significant differences.
Freegenol showed higher micro-shear bond strengths than Propac, but there were no significant differences.
In groups used dual bonding technique, SE Bond showed significantly higher micro-shear bond strengths in One-Step and All-Bond 2 (p < 0.05), but there was no significant difference between One-Step and All-Bond 2.
In SEM observation, with the use of All-Bond 2 and One-Step, very long and numerous resin tags were observed. This study suggests that there were no findings that the dual bonding technique would be better than the conventional luting procedure.
Table 1.
Materials used in this study
Table 2.
Experimental groups classified by luting methods, temporary cement, and dentin bonding system
Table 3.
Application manner of Dentin Bonding System (DBS)
Table 4.
Micro-shear bond strength of experimental group (Unit: ㎫, Mean ± S.D.)
- 1. Tyas MJ, Anusavice KJ, Frencken JE, Mount GJ. Minimal intervention dentistry. Int Dent J 20:1-12. 2000.
- 2. Versluis A, Douglas WH, Cross M, Sakaguchi RL. Does an incremental filling technique reduce the polymerization shrinkage stress? J Dent Res 75:871-878. 1996.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 3. Fontana M, Dunipace AJ, Gregory RL, Noblitt TW, Li Y, Park KK, Stookey GK. An in vitro microbiological model for studying secondary careis formatioon. Caries Res 30:112-118. 1996.ArticlePubMed
- 4. Inokoshi S, Willems G, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P, Braem M, Vanherle G. Dual-cure luting composites : Part Ⅰ: Filler particle distribution. J Oral Rehabil 20:133-146. 1993.PubMed
- 5. Burrow MF, Nikaido T, Satoh M, Tagami J. Early bonding of resin cements to dentin. Oper Dent 21:196-202. 1996.PubMed
- 6. Eliades G. Clinical relevance of the formulation and testing of dentine bonding systems. J Dent 22:73-81. 1994.ArticlePubMed
- 7. Frankenberger R, Kramer N, Petschelt A. Technique sensitivity of dentin bonding : Effect of application mistakes on bond strength and marginal adaptation. Oper Dent 25:324-330. 2000.PubMed
- 8. El-Mowafy OM, Bennergui C. Radiopacity of resin-based inlay luting cements. Oper Dent 19:11-15. 1994.PubMed
- 9. Milleding P, Ortengren U, Karlsson S. Ceramic inlay systems : some clinical aspects. J Oral Rehabil 22:571-580. 1995.ArticlePubMed
- 10. Watanabe I, Nakabayashi N, Pashley PH. Bonding to ground dentin by a Phenyl-P self-etching primer. J Dent Res 73:1212-1220. 1994.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 11. Xie J, Powers JM, McGuckin RS. In vitro bond strength of two adhesives to enamel and dentin under normal and contaminated conditions. Dent Mater 9:295-299. 1993.ArticlePubMed
- 12. Kaneshima T, Yatani H, Kassai T, Watanabe EK, Yamashita A. The influence of blood contamination on bond strengths between dentin and adhesive resin cement. Oper Dent 25:195-201. 2000.PubMed
- 13. Christensen GJ. Resin cements and post-operative sensitivity. J Am Dent Assoc 131:1197-1199. 2000.ArticlePubMed
- 14. Paul SJ, Scha¨rer P. The dual bonding technique : A modified method to improve adhesive luting procedures. Int J Periodont Rest Dent 17:537-545. 1997.
- 15. DeGoes MF, Nikaido T, Pereira PNR, Tagami J. Early bond strengths of dual- cured resin cement to resin-coated dentin. J Dent Res 79:453. 2000.
- 16. Bertschinger C, Paul SJ, Luthy H, Scha¨rer P. Dual application of dentin bonding agents : effects on bond strengths. Am J Dent 9:115-119. 1996.PubMed
- 17. Baier RE. Principles of adhesion. Oper Dent (Supplement 5):1-9. 1992.
- 18. Terata R. Characterization of enamel and dentin surfaces after removal of temporary cement - study on removal of temporary cement. Dent Mater 12:18-28. 1993.
- 19. Marshall SJ, Marshall GW, Harcourt JK. The influence of various cavity bases on the micro-hardness of composites. Aust Dent J 27:291-295. 1982.ArticlePubMed
- 20. Millstein PL, Nathanson D. Effect of eugenol and eugenol cements on cured composite resin. J Prosthet Dent 50:211-215. 1983.ArticlePubMed
- 21. Powell TL, Huget EF. Effects of cements and eugenol on properties of a visible light-cured composite. Pediatr Dent 15:104-107. 1993.PubMed
- 22. Woody TL, Davis RD. The effect of eugenol containing and eugenol-free temporary cements on microleakage in resin bonded restorations. Oper Dent 17:175-180. 1992.PubMed
- 23. Stangel I, Nathanson D, Hsu C. Shear strength of the composite bond to etched porcelain. J Dent Res 66:1460-1465. 1987.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 24. So¨derholm K-JM. Correlation of in vivo and in vitro performance of adhesive materials : A report of the ASC MD 156 task group on test methods for adhesion of restorative materials. Dent Mater 7:74-83. 1991.PubMed
- 25. Swift EJ, Perdigao J, Heymann HO. Bonding to enamel and dentin : A brief history and state of the art. Quintessence Int 26:95-110. 1995.PubMed
- 26. Sano H, Shono T, Sonoda H, Takatsu T, Ciucchi B, Carvalho R, Pashley DH. Relationship between surface area for adhesion and tensile bond strength-evaluation of a microtensile bond test. Dent Mater 10:236-240. 1994.ArticlePubMed
- 27. Gwinnett AJ, Kanca J. Micromorphology of the bonded dentine interface and its relationship to bond strength. Am J Dent 5:73-77. 1992.PubMed
- 28. Sano H, Takatsu T, Ciucchi B, Horner JA, Matthews WG, Pashley DH. Nanoleakage: leakage within the hybrid layer. Oper Dent 20:18-25. 1995.PubMed
- 29. Cox CF. Evaluation and treatment of bacterial microleakage. Am J Dent 7:293-295. 1994.PubMed
- 30. Paul SJ, Scha¨rer P. Effect of provisional cements on the shear bond strength of various dentin bonding agents. J Oral Rehabil 24:8-14. 1997.ArticlePubMed
- 31. Christensen GJ. Resin cements and postoperative sensitivity. J Am Dent Assoc 131:1197-1199. 2000.ArticlePubMed
- 32. Sorensen JA, Munksgaard EC, Odont D. Relative gap formation adjacent to ceramic inlays with combination of resin cements and dentine bonding agents. J Prosthet Dent 76:472-476. 1996.PubMed
- 33. Magne P, Douglas WH. Porcelain veneers : dentin bonding optimization and biomimetic recovery of the crown. Int J Prosthodont 12:111-121. 1999.PubMed
- 34. Kanca J. Resin bonding to wet substrates I-bonding to dentin. Quintessence Int 23:39-41. 1992.PubMed
- 35. Tay FR, Gwinnett JA, Wei SH. Micromorphological spectrum from over drying to over-wetting acid conditioned dentin in water-free acetone-based single bottle primer/adhesives. Dent Mater 12:236-244. 1996.ArticlePubMed
- 36. Nakabayashi N, Kojima K, Masuhara E. The promotion of adhesion by the infiltration of monomers into tooth substrates. J Biomed Mater Res 16:265-273. 1982.ArticlePubMed
- 37. Ganss C, Jung M. Effect of eugenol- containing temporary cements on bond strength of composite to dentin. Oper Dent 23:55-62. 1998.PubMed
- 38. Yoshiyama M, Carvalho RM, Sano H, Horner JA, Brewer PD, Pashley DH. Regional bond strengths of resins to human root dentine. J Dent 24:435-442. 1996.ArticlePubMed
- 39. Pashley DH, Pashley EL. Dentin permeability and restorative dentistry : a status report for the American Journal of Dentistry. Am J Dent 4:5-9. 1991.PubMed
REFERENCES
Tables & Figures
REFERENCES
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by 
ePub Link
Cite
XML DownloadComparative evaluation of micro-shear bond strength between two different luting methods of resin cement to dentin
Figure 1. Micro-shear bond strengths of luting method according to dentin bonding system.
Figure 2. Micro-shear bond strengths of dentin bonding system according to luting method.
Figure 3. SEM photograph of the adhesive interface of CPA group (×1500).
Figure 4. SEM photograph of the adhesive interface of CPO group (×1500).
Figure 5. SEM photograph of the adhesive interface of CPS group (×1500).
Figure 6. SEM photograph of the adhesive interface of CFA group (×1500).
Figure 7. SEM photograph of the adhesive interface of CFO group (×1500).
Figure 8. SEM photograph of the adhesive interface of CFS group (×1500).
Figure 9. SEM photograph of the adhesive interface of DPA group (×1500).
Figure 10. SEM photograph of the adhesive interface of DPO group (×1500).
Figure 11. SEM photograph of the adhesive interface of DPS group (×1500).
Figure 12. SEM photograph of the adhesive interface of DFA group (×1500).
Figure 13. SEM photograph of the adhesive interface of DFO group (×1500).
Figure 14. SEM photograph of the adhesive interface of DFS group (×1500).
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Figure 10.
Figure 11.
Figure 12.
Figure 13.
Figure 14.
Comparative evaluation of micro-shear bond strength between two different luting methods of resin cement to dentin
| Materials | Component | Composition | Manufacturer |
|---|---|---|---|
| All-Bond 2 | Conditioner | 37% Phosphoric acid | |
| Primer A | 2% NTG-GMA | ||
| Primer B | 16% BPDM | BISCO. Inc. (IL, USA) | |
| Adhesive | Bis-GMA, UDMA, HEMA | ||
| One-Step | Conditioner | 37% Phosphoric acid | |
| Adhesive | Bis-GMA, UDMA, HEMA, | BISCO. Inc. (IL, USA) | |
| Initiator, acetone | |||
| Clearfil SE Bond (SE Bond) | Primer | MDP, HEMA, water | |
| Adhesive | MDP, HEMA, | Kuraray Co., (Osaka, Japan) | |
| dimethacrylate, microfiller | |||
| Propac | Base | Zinc oxide, olive oil, turpentine oil | GC Co. (Tokyo, Japan) |
| Accelerator | Eugenol, Rosin, Carnaba wax | ||
| Freegenol | Base | Zinc oxide, olive oil, Vaseline | |
| Accelerator | Polymer-fatty acid, estergum, | GC Co. (Tokyo, Japan) | |
| beeswax, oleic acid | |||
| Choice | Adhesive | Strontium glass, amorphous silica, | |
| paste | Bis-GMA, UDMA, photoinitiator | BISCO. Inc. (IL, USA) | |
| Dual-cure | Amorphous silica, Bis-GMA, | ||
| catalyst paste | TEGDMA, benzoyl peroxide | ||
| Luting method | Temporary cement | Dentin bonding system | Group |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conventional luting procedure (C) | Propac (P) | All-Bond 2 (A) | CPA |
| One-Step (O) | CPO | ||
| Clearfil SE Bond (S) | CPS | ||
| Freegenol (F) | All-Bond 2 (A) | CFA | |
| One-Step (O) | CFO | ||
| Clearfil SE Bond (S) | CFS | ||
| Dual bonding technique (D) | Propac (P) | All-Bond 2 (A) | DPA |
| One-Step (O) | DPO | ||
| Clearfil SE Bond (S) | DPS | ||
| Freegenol (F) | All-Bond 2 (A) | DFA | |
| One-Step (O) | DFO | ||
| Clearfil SE Bond (S) | DFS |
| DBS | Manner of application to denin surface |
|---|---|
| All-Bond 2 | Etching 15 sec, |
| Priming - mixed Primer A and B (five times), air dry 5 sec | |
| Adhesive, light-cure 20 sec | |
| One-Step | Etching 15 sec |
| Adhesive (two coat), air dry 5 sec | |
| Light-cure 10 sec | |
| SE Bond | Primer 20 sec, air dry |
| Adhesive, light-cure 10 sec | |
| Luting method | Temporary cement | Dentin bonding system |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All-Bond (A) | One-Step (O) | SE Bond (S) | ||
| Conventional (C) | Propac (P) | 34.99 ± 8.34 | 41.13 ± 10.29 | 42.74 ± 6.45 |
| Freegenol (F) | 37.27 ± 8.35 | 38.38 ± 10.30 | 47.23 ± 8.78 | |
| Dual bonding (D) | Propac (P) | 27.31 ± 8.75 | 31.38 ± 7.88 | 45.52 ± 9.46 |
| Freegenol (F) | 28.19 ± 8.10 | 32.76 ± 8.71 | 44.94 ± 12.54 | |
Table 1. Materials used in this study
Bis-GMA: Bisphenol-A glycidyl methacrylate HEMA: Hydroxyethylmethacrylate MDP: Methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate
Table 2. Experimental groups classified by luting methods, temporary cement, and dentin bonding system
Table 3. Application manner of Dentin Bonding System (DBS)
Table 4. Micro-shear bond strength of experimental group (Unit: ㎫, Mean ± S.D.)
