Fatigue limits of enamel bonds with moist and dry techniques

Wayne W. Barkmeier, Robert L. Erickson, Mark A. Latta

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

26 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: Shear fatigue limit (SFL) testing, coupled with shear bond strength (SBS) measurements can provide valuable information regarding the ability of adhesive systems to bond to mineralized tooth structures. The clinical technique for enamel bonding with adhesive resins has shifted from bonding to a thoroughly dried acid conditioned surface to a moist surface to facilitate dentin bonding. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of ethanol-containing etch-and-rinse adhesive (ERA) systems on moist and dry enamel by determining the resin composite to enamel SBS and SFL, and examining the relationship of SBS and SFL. Methods: Twelve specimens each were used to determine 24-h resin composite (Z100 - 3M ESPE) to enamel SBS to moist and dry surfaces with two ERA systems, Adper Single Bond Plus (SBP) and OptiBond Solo Plus (OBP). A staircase method of fatigue testing was used in a four-station fatigue cycler to determine the SFL of resin composite to enamel bonds (moist and dry) with the two ERA systems (20 specimens for each test condition) at 0.25 Hz for 40,000 cycles. ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test were used for the SBS data and a modified t-test with Bonferroni correction was used for comparisons of SFL. Results: The two ERA systems each generated statistically similar SBS (p > 0.05) to moist and dry enamel and the SBS of SBP was significantly higher than OBP on dry enamel (p <0.05). The SFL of SBP was significantly greater to dry enamel when compared to moist enamel and there was not a significant difference in the SFL of OBP on dry and moist enamel. There were no significant differences in SFL values between SBP on either moist or dry enamel and OBP on both moist and dry enamel. Significance: Fatigue testing may provide more useful information than SBS tests regarding the performance of dental adhesive systems. The chemical composition, solvents and filler components of ERA systems may influence their ability to develop long-term durable bonds to both moist and dry enamel surfaces.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1527-1531
Number of pages5
JournalDental Materials
Volume25
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2009

Fingerprint

Enamels
Dental Enamel
Fatigue
Shear Strength
Fatigue of materials
Adhesives
Resins
Fatigue testing
Composite Resins
Composite materials
Dental Cements
Dentin
Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
Fillers
Analysis of Variance
Tooth
Ethanol

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Mechanics of Materials
  • Materials Science(all)
  • Medicine(all)
  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Fatigue limits of enamel bonds with moist and dry techniques. / Barkmeier, Wayne W.; Erickson, Robert L.; Latta, Mark A.

In: Dental Materials, Vol. 25, No. 12, 12.2009, p. 1527-1531.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{216f24dcb9194418b3d1b3774009380e,
title = "Fatigue limits of enamel bonds with moist and dry techniques",
abstract = "Objective: Shear fatigue limit (SFL) testing, coupled with shear bond strength (SBS) measurements can provide valuable information regarding the ability of adhesive systems to bond to mineralized tooth structures. The clinical technique for enamel bonding with adhesive resins has shifted from bonding to a thoroughly dried acid conditioned surface to a moist surface to facilitate dentin bonding. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of ethanol-containing etch-and-rinse adhesive (ERA) systems on moist and dry enamel by determining the resin composite to enamel SBS and SFL, and examining the relationship of SBS and SFL. Methods: Twelve specimens each were used to determine 24-h resin composite (Z100 - 3M ESPE) to enamel SBS to moist and dry surfaces with two ERA systems, Adper Single Bond Plus (SBP) and OptiBond Solo Plus (OBP). A staircase method of fatigue testing was used in a four-station fatigue cycler to determine the SFL of resin composite to enamel bonds (moist and dry) with the two ERA systems (20 specimens for each test condition) at 0.25 Hz for 40,000 cycles. ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test were used for the SBS data and a modified t-test with Bonferroni correction was used for comparisons of SFL. Results: The two ERA systems each generated statistically similar SBS (p > 0.05) to moist and dry enamel and the SBS of SBP was significantly higher than OBP on dry enamel (p <0.05). The SFL of SBP was significantly greater to dry enamel when compared to moist enamel and there was not a significant difference in the SFL of OBP on dry and moist enamel. There were no significant differences in SFL values between SBP on either moist or dry enamel and OBP on both moist and dry enamel. Significance: Fatigue testing may provide more useful information than SBS tests regarding the performance of dental adhesive systems. The chemical composition, solvents and filler components of ERA systems may influence their ability to develop long-term durable bonds to both moist and dry enamel surfaces.",
author = "Barkmeier, {Wayne W.} and Erickson, {Robert L.} and Latta, {Mark A.}",
year = "2009",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1016/j.dental.2009.07.005",
language = "English",
volume = "25",
pages = "1527--1531",
journal = "Dental Materials",
issn = "0109-5641",
publisher = "Elsevier Science",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Fatigue limits of enamel bonds with moist and dry techniques

AU - Barkmeier, Wayne W.

AU - Erickson, Robert L.

AU - Latta, Mark A.

PY - 2009/12

Y1 - 2009/12

N2 - Objective: Shear fatigue limit (SFL) testing, coupled with shear bond strength (SBS) measurements can provide valuable information regarding the ability of adhesive systems to bond to mineralized tooth structures. The clinical technique for enamel bonding with adhesive resins has shifted from bonding to a thoroughly dried acid conditioned surface to a moist surface to facilitate dentin bonding. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of ethanol-containing etch-and-rinse adhesive (ERA) systems on moist and dry enamel by determining the resin composite to enamel SBS and SFL, and examining the relationship of SBS and SFL. Methods: Twelve specimens each were used to determine 24-h resin composite (Z100 - 3M ESPE) to enamel SBS to moist and dry surfaces with two ERA systems, Adper Single Bond Plus (SBP) and OptiBond Solo Plus (OBP). A staircase method of fatigue testing was used in a four-station fatigue cycler to determine the SFL of resin composite to enamel bonds (moist and dry) with the two ERA systems (20 specimens for each test condition) at 0.25 Hz for 40,000 cycles. ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test were used for the SBS data and a modified t-test with Bonferroni correction was used for comparisons of SFL. Results: The two ERA systems each generated statistically similar SBS (p > 0.05) to moist and dry enamel and the SBS of SBP was significantly higher than OBP on dry enamel (p <0.05). The SFL of SBP was significantly greater to dry enamel when compared to moist enamel and there was not a significant difference in the SFL of OBP on dry and moist enamel. There were no significant differences in SFL values between SBP on either moist or dry enamel and OBP on both moist and dry enamel. Significance: Fatigue testing may provide more useful information than SBS tests regarding the performance of dental adhesive systems. The chemical composition, solvents and filler components of ERA systems may influence their ability to develop long-term durable bonds to both moist and dry enamel surfaces.

AB - Objective: Shear fatigue limit (SFL) testing, coupled with shear bond strength (SBS) measurements can provide valuable information regarding the ability of adhesive systems to bond to mineralized tooth structures. The clinical technique for enamel bonding with adhesive resins has shifted from bonding to a thoroughly dried acid conditioned surface to a moist surface to facilitate dentin bonding. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of ethanol-containing etch-and-rinse adhesive (ERA) systems on moist and dry enamel by determining the resin composite to enamel SBS and SFL, and examining the relationship of SBS and SFL. Methods: Twelve specimens each were used to determine 24-h resin composite (Z100 - 3M ESPE) to enamel SBS to moist and dry surfaces with two ERA systems, Adper Single Bond Plus (SBP) and OptiBond Solo Plus (OBP). A staircase method of fatigue testing was used in a four-station fatigue cycler to determine the SFL of resin composite to enamel bonds (moist and dry) with the two ERA systems (20 specimens for each test condition) at 0.25 Hz for 40,000 cycles. ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test were used for the SBS data and a modified t-test with Bonferroni correction was used for comparisons of SFL. Results: The two ERA systems each generated statistically similar SBS (p > 0.05) to moist and dry enamel and the SBS of SBP was significantly higher than OBP on dry enamel (p <0.05). The SFL of SBP was significantly greater to dry enamel when compared to moist enamel and there was not a significant difference in the SFL of OBP on dry and moist enamel. There were no significant differences in SFL values between SBP on either moist or dry enamel and OBP on both moist and dry enamel. Significance: Fatigue testing may provide more useful information than SBS tests regarding the performance of dental adhesive systems. The chemical composition, solvents and filler components of ERA systems may influence their ability to develop long-term durable bonds to both moist and dry enamel surfaces.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=70350571078&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=70350571078&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.dental.2009.07.005

DO - 10.1016/j.dental.2009.07.005

M3 - Article

VL - 25

SP - 1527

EP - 1531

JO - Dental Materials

JF - Dental Materials

SN - 0109-5641

IS - 12

ER -