IADR Abstract Archives
Effect of Surface Treatment and Application Techniques on Bond Strength of Self-Adhesive Composites
Objectives: Directly bonding to the tooth structure using a self-adhesive flowable composite is attractive in restorations as it simplifies the chair-side procedure and reduces handling errors. The aim of this study was to evaluate bonding effectiveness of self-adhesive composites in restorations influenced by different application techniques and tooth surface treatment.
Methods: Five SACs were used which included Vertise Flow (Kerr Dental), Constic (DMG), Fusio Liquid Dentin (Pentron Clinical), Fit SA (Shofu) and an experimental SAC (Zest Dental Solutions). Their shear bond strength (SBS) on bovine enamel and human dentin was tested using the standardized SBS Ultradent method (N=7). Different bonding procedures were applied, including (a) static application, i.e., simply extruding and spreading SAC on tooth surface, (b) dynamic application, i.e., rubbing SAC on tooth surface for 20s, (c) phosphoric acid etching followed by static application, (d) air-abrasion with 50 μm Al2O3 using a sandblasting device (MicroEtcherTM Sandblaster, Zest Dental Solutions, CA, USA) followed by static SAC application. Microleakage and interfacial integrity of the restoration were assessed by scanning electron microscopy. Statistical significance was performance by 1-way ANOVA post hoc Turkey tests (P<0.05).
Results: Using the static application technique, the SBS of the experimental SAC was above 15 MPa on both enamel and dentin which is superior to the commercial SACs (Fig. 1). As shown in Fig. 2, acid etching significantly improved the SBS of SAC on enamel (p<0.05). Dynamic application and air-abrasion also improved bonding on enamel. On dentin, both acid etching and dynamic application significantly reduced the bond strength (p<0.05). Moisture on tooth structure negatively affected the bond strength on both enamel and dentin.
Conclusions: Bonding effectiveness of SACs on tooth is affected by application techniques and tooth surface treatment. To achieve high bond strength of SAC in restorations, select enamel etching, air-abrasion and static application are recommended.
Methods: Five SACs were used which included Vertise Flow (Kerr Dental), Constic (DMG), Fusio Liquid Dentin (Pentron Clinical), Fit SA (Shofu) and an experimental SAC (Zest Dental Solutions). Their shear bond strength (SBS) on bovine enamel and human dentin was tested using the standardized SBS Ultradent method (N=7). Different bonding procedures were applied, including (a) static application, i.e., simply extruding and spreading SAC on tooth surface, (b) dynamic application, i.e., rubbing SAC on tooth surface for 20s, (c) phosphoric acid etching followed by static application, (d) air-abrasion with 50 μm Al2O3 using a sandblasting device (MicroEtcherTM Sandblaster, Zest Dental Solutions, CA, USA) followed by static SAC application. Microleakage and interfacial integrity of the restoration were assessed by scanning electron microscopy. Statistical significance was performance by 1-way ANOVA post hoc Turkey tests (P<0.05).
Results: Using the static application technique, the SBS of the experimental SAC was above 15 MPa on both enamel and dentin which is superior to the commercial SACs (Fig. 1). As shown in Fig. 2, acid etching significantly improved the SBS of SAC on enamel (p<0.05). Dynamic application and air-abrasion also improved bonding on enamel. On dentin, both acid etching and dynamic application significantly reduced the bond strength (p<0.05). Moisture on tooth structure negatively affected the bond strength on both enamel and dentin.
Conclusions: Bonding effectiveness of SACs on tooth is affected by application techniques and tooth surface treatment. To achieve high bond strength of SAC in restorations, select enamel etching, air-abrasion and static application are recommended.
3661090_File000003.jpg
3661090_File000005.jpg