Abstract
Purpose: To determine the difference in microtensile bond strengths (MTBS) of resin-based composite bonded to the enamel of cavity preparations using a conventional or a self-etching adhesive. Methods: Buccal and lingual Class V cavities were prepared in each of 12 caries-free human molars. Six teeth were randomly selected to be restored with Spectrum TPH resin-based composite and Prime & Bond NT adhesive. The remaining six teeth were restored with the same composite and Prompt L-Pop self-etching adhesive. Enamel/composite sticks were cut from each specimen and subjected to microtensile bond testing. Each debonded specimen was evaluated by SEM to determine the mode of failure. Results: The mean MTBS for Prime & Bond NT specimens was 15.2 ± 13.1 MPa. The mean MTBS for Prompt L-Pop self-etching adhesive samples was 18.2 ± 14.3 MPa. ANOVA demonstrated no statistically significant difference between the mean MTBS associated with the two adhesives (P> 0.05). The results of SEM analysis revealed that the bonding failures occurred primarily at the interface between the adhesive and the enamel, suggesting a primarily adhesive failure.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 37-40 |
| Number of pages | 4 |
| Journal | American Journal of Dentistry |
| Volume | 18 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| State | Published - Feb 2005 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Fingerprint
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Dentistry(all)
Cite this
Microtensile bond strength of total-etch and self-etch adhesives to the enamel walls of Class V cavities. / Kelsey, William P.; Latta, Mark A.; Vargas, Marco A.; Carroll, Lucinda R.; Armstrong, Steven R.
In: American Journal of Dentistry, Vol. 18, No. 1, 02.2005, p. 37-40.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Microtensile bond strength of total-etch and self-etch adhesives to the enamel walls of Class V cavities
AU - Kelsey, William P.
AU - Latta, Mark A.
AU - Vargas, Marco A.
AU - Carroll, Lucinda R.
AU - Armstrong, Steven R.
PY - 2005/2
Y1 - 2005/2
N2 - Purpose: To determine the difference in microtensile bond strengths (MTBS) of resin-based composite bonded to the enamel of cavity preparations using a conventional or a self-etching adhesive. Methods: Buccal and lingual Class V cavities were prepared in each of 12 caries-free human molars. Six teeth were randomly selected to be restored with Spectrum TPH resin-based composite and Prime & Bond NT adhesive. The remaining six teeth were restored with the same composite and Prompt L-Pop self-etching adhesive. Enamel/composite sticks were cut from each specimen and subjected to microtensile bond testing. Each debonded specimen was evaluated by SEM to determine the mode of failure. Results: The mean MTBS for Prime & Bond NT specimens was 15.2 ± 13.1 MPa. The mean MTBS for Prompt L-Pop self-etching adhesive samples was 18.2 ± 14.3 MPa. ANOVA demonstrated no statistically significant difference between the mean MTBS associated with the two adhesives (P> 0.05). The results of SEM analysis revealed that the bonding failures occurred primarily at the interface between the adhesive and the enamel, suggesting a primarily adhesive failure.
AB - Purpose: To determine the difference in microtensile bond strengths (MTBS) of resin-based composite bonded to the enamel of cavity preparations using a conventional or a self-etching adhesive. Methods: Buccal and lingual Class V cavities were prepared in each of 12 caries-free human molars. Six teeth were randomly selected to be restored with Spectrum TPH resin-based composite and Prime & Bond NT adhesive. The remaining six teeth were restored with the same composite and Prompt L-Pop self-etching adhesive. Enamel/composite sticks were cut from each specimen and subjected to microtensile bond testing. Each debonded specimen was evaluated by SEM to determine the mode of failure. Results: The mean MTBS for Prime & Bond NT specimens was 15.2 ± 13.1 MPa. The mean MTBS for Prompt L-Pop self-etching adhesive samples was 18.2 ± 14.3 MPa. ANOVA demonstrated no statistically significant difference between the mean MTBS associated with the two adhesives (P> 0.05). The results of SEM analysis revealed that the bonding failures occurred primarily at the interface between the adhesive and the enamel, suggesting a primarily adhesive failure.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=18244387960&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=18244387960&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Article
VL - 18
SP - 37
EP - 40
JO - American Journal of Dentistry
JF - American Journal of Dentistry
SN - 0894-8275
IS - 1
ER -