IADR Abstract Archives
Do Adhesives Always Need to be Light-Cured Separately?
Objectives: To compare the influence of an additional light curing step of an universal adhesive used with 2 different composites on shear bond strength (SBS).
Methods: 32 flat dentine specimens from bovine teeth were produced and divided into 4 groups (n=8). iBOND Universal (IBUN, Kulzer) was actively applied on the dentine surfaces of all samples in self-etch mode according to its instruction for use. In half of the specimens the adhesive was light-cured separately for 10s using a Translux Wave curing light (Kulzer, 1200mW/cm2). The other half the adhesive was light cured together with the composite. A composite cylinder made of the new experimental one-shade flowable (VBFO, Kulzer) or Venus Pearl ONE (VPO, Kulzer) was applied on the adhesive layer using the Ultradent equipment. Subsequently, the composite or the adhesive and composite was light-cured by Translux Wave for 20s. The groups were specified as follows: G1: IBUN, no light-curing adhesive, VBFO. G2: iBUN, light-curing adhesive, VBFO. G3: iBUN, no light-curing adhesive, VPO. G4: iBUN, light-curing adhesive, VPO).
SBS was measured according to ISO 29022 (Ultradent method, cross-head speed 1mm/s) after 24h water storage at 37°C. The data was statistically processed using twofold ANOVA (p<0.05) analysing the influence of adhesive light curing and the used composite.
Results: Results are shown in the table below. Failure mode was always adhesive in G1 and G3, whilst it was predominantly cohesive in G2 and G4.
The type of light-curing was statistical significant (p<0.0001), whereas the material showed no significant influence (p=0.78).
Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study it can be concluded, that the separate light-curing step of the adhesive is mandatory. Further investigations are needed to understand the processes at the adhesive-composite interface.
Methods: 32 flat dentine specimens from bovine teeth were produced and divided into 4 groups (n=8). iBOND Universal (IBUN, Kulzer) was actively applied on the dentine surfaces of all samples in self-etch mode according to its instruction for use. In half of the specimens the adhesive was light-cured separately for 10s using a Translux Wave curing light (Kulzer, 1200mW/cm2). The other half the adhesive was light cured together with the composite. A composite cylinder made of the new experimental one-shade flowable (VBFO, Kulzer) or Venus Pearl ONE (VPO, Kulzer) was applied on the adhesive layer using the Ultradent equipment. Subsequently, the composite or the adhesive and composite was light-cured by Translux Wave for 20s. The groups were specified as follows: G1: IBUN, no light-curing adhesive, VBFO. G2: iBUN, light-curing adhesive, VBFO. G3: iBUN, no light-curing adhesive, VPO. G4: iBUN, light-curing adhesive, VPO).
SBS was measured according to ISO 29022 (Ultradent method, cross-head speed 1mm/s) after 24h water storage at 37°C. The data was statistically processed using twofold ANOVA (p<0.05) analysing the influence of adhesive light curing and the used composite.
Results: Results are shown in the table below. Failure mode was always adhesive in G1 and G3, whilst it was predominantly cohesive in G2 and G4.
The type of light-curing was statistical significant (p<0.0001), whereas the material showed no significant influence (p=0.78).
Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study it can be concluded, that the separate light-curing step of the adhesive is mandatory. Further investigations are needed to understand the processes at the adhesive-composite interface.