|
Conditions |
SI |
Z250 |
VT |
TPH |
TCHB |
|
Enamel/SPE |
14.2 (3.8) |
19.1 (5.1) |
17.7 (3.9) |
16.3 (2.5) |
17.0 (3.8) |
|
Enamel/PA |
18.3 (4.7) |
19.4 (5.0) |
24.4 (3.6) |
17.7 (5.7) |
18.6 (5.7) |
|
Dentin/SPE |
9.1 (4.4) |
15.1 (6.7) |
14.7 (6.0) |
10.7 (2.9) |
6.7 (3.8) |
|
Dentin/PA |
11.3 (4.6) |
25.4 (10.2) |
20.1 (7.6) |
20.6 (6.2) |
20.0 (4.9) |
Fishers PLSD intervals (p=0.05) for comparisons of means among composites, between substrates and between 2 bonding systems were 3.4, 2.1 and 2.1MPa, respectively. Bond failures were mixed. Conclusions: After thermocycling, the PA bonding system had higher bond strengths than the SPE bonding system in both enamel and dentin with all 5 composites. The SPE bonding system performed better on enamel than dentin with all 5 composites. Supported by NIH/NIDCR T35 DE07252-09. Products provided by manufacturers.