IADR Abstract Archives

Bond of a Novel Universal Adhesive to Restorative and Tooth

Objectives: To measure the 24 hour and thermocycled shear bond strength (SBS) of an improved universal bonding agent (UA) (3M) to 5 restorative materials (Feldspathic porcelain, LAVA Frame, IPS e.max CAD, Type IV gold and a base metal alloy) compared to 2 other adhesives, and also to measure the universal bonding agent (UA) (3M) to unetched and etched human dentin and enamel compared to 4 other adhesives.
Methods: 128 caries free human molar teeth were collected following IRB approval. The teeth were ground with abrasive disks (ending with 400 grit) to flatten enamel and dentin occlusal surfaces. Each bonding adhesive was applied to the flattened surfaces following manufacturers’ instructions. Specimens were prepared by etching enamel and dentin with phosphoric acid etching (32%, 15 seconds). The adhesives were applied and cured (Elipar Deep Cure (3M) curing light, >1020mW/cm2). The 2 UA were bonded to 5 restorative materials. A tube filled with Z100 (A2) (3M) composite resin (diameter-1.5mm) was placed over the adhesive and light-cured 40sec. All specimens were stored in an incubator at 370C, half were debonded at 24 hours and the other half were thermocycled and stored for 3 months in water. Both were loaded in shear to failure, at a 1mm/min cross-head speed. Bond strengths were calculated and data analyzed using 3-way ANOVA and Tukey test (p=0.05).
Results: Shown in table-1 and table-2.
Mean bond strength (MPa) (n=8).
Conclusions: There were no significant difference between materials on any other than etch enamel. On Etched enamel there was a significant difference, between SBU and P&B NT (p=0.01).
Division: IADR/AADR/CADR General Session
Meeting: 2020 IADR/AADR/CADR General Session (Washington, D.C., USA)
Location: Washington, D.C., USA
Year: 2020
Final Presentation ID: 0749
Abstract Category|Abstract Category(s): Dental Materials 4: Adhesion
Authors
  • Farheen, Faimeena  ( UAB School of Dentistry , Birmingham , Alabama , United States )
  • Burgess, John  ( University of Alabama at Birmingham , Birmingham , Alabama , United States )
  • Huang, Chan Te  ( UAB School of Dentistry , Birmingham , Alabama , United States )
  • Lawson, Nathaniel  ( University of Alabama at Birmingham , Birmingham , Alabama , United States )
  • Financial Interest Disclosure: NONE
    SESSION INFORMATION
    Poster Session
    Universal Adhesives
    TABLES
    Table-1
    Bonding agentEtched enamel (24hrs)Aged etchedEtched Dentin (24hrs)Aged etched dentin
    Experimental UA29.8±4.234.5±1820.1±6.528±8.9
    Optibond Solo Plus21.7±4.024.7±6.818.2±7.825.1±9
    Scotchbond Universal UA25.3±5.237.5±12.623.2±9.124.1±9.5
    Prime and Bond NT23.0±4.121±6.721.6±7.131±9

    Table-2
    Bonding agentZirconiaNickel ChromiumGoldLithium disilicatePorcelain
    Experimental adhesive 24 hrs21.1±9.018.9±3.211.4±4.220.3±3.723.3±7.4
    Experimental adhesive aged25.4±7.530.1±7.816.1±927.7±16.221.3±11.3
    Scotchbond Universal 24 hrs25.2±7.523.2±2.48.0±2.319.1±7.116.2±6.7
    Scotchbond Universal aged36.7±9.827.7±10.117.8±928.8±8.226.2±3.9