• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.26-39
• /
• 1999

Bis-GMA, the representative monomer of bonding resin, contributes to the rigidity of bonding layer. Hydrophilic monomer contributes to the permeability into dentin substrates while weaken the bonding layer due to its small molecular weight. The degree of conversion also contributes to the ultimate strength of the bonding layer. This study was performed for the correlation analysis of monomer ratio and dentin bonding strength via degree of conversion. 7 experimental bonding resins were prepared with Bis-GMA, ratio from 20% to 80% by 10% increment, and hydrophilic HEMA monomer. Their degree of conversion and shear bond strength to dentin were compared with Scotchbond Multi-Purpose adhesive, and the fractured surfaces were examined microscopically. The results were as follows; 1. The degree of conversion increased when, the ratio of Bis-GMA increased from 20% to 70%, whereas it decreased when the ratio of Bis-GMA was 80%. 2. Shear bond strengths of the experimental bonding resins of 80%, 70%, 60% ratio of Bis-GMA were significantly higher than those of the experimental bonding resin of 50% ratio of Bis-GMA and Scotchbond Multi-Purpose adhesive. Lower shear bond strengths were obtained with the experimental bonding resins of 40%, 30%, 20% ratio of Bis-GMA (p<0.05). 3. Adhesive fractures were associated with the bonding resins of the lower bond strength, while cohesive fractures within the bonding resin layer were associated with the bonding resins of higher bond strength. Bonding resins with shear bond strength higher than 18MPa showed some cohesive fractures within the composite resin or within the dentin. 4. Correlations between Bis-GMA ratio and the degree of conversion (r=0.826), between Bis-GMA ratio and shear bond strength (r=0.853), and between the degree of conversion and shear bond strength (r=0.786) were significant (p<0.05).

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.8 no.4
• /
• pp.251-258
• /
• 2016

PURPOSE. This study was undertaken to investigate whether use of an adhesive penetration enhancer, dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), improves bond stability of fiber posts to root dentin using two two-step etch-and-rinse resin cements. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Forty human maxillary central incisor roots were randomly divided into 4 groups after endodontic treatment and post space preparation, based on the fiber post/cement used with and without DMSO pretreatment. Acid-etched root dentin was treated with 5% DMSO aqueous solution for 60 seconds or with distilled water (control) prior to the application of Excite DSC/Variolink II or One-Step Plus/Duolink for post cementation. After micro-slicing the bonded root dentin, push-out bond strength (P-OBS) test was performed immediately or after 1-year of water storage in each group. Data were analyzed using three-way ANOVA and Student's t-test (${\alpha}$=.05). RESULTS. A significant effect of time, DMSO treatment, and treatment${\times}$time interaction were observed (P<.001). DMSO did not affect immediate bonding of the two cements. Aging significantly reduced P-OBS in control groups (P<.001), while in DMSO-treated groups, no difference in P-OBS was observed after aging (P>.05). CONCLUSION. DMSO-wet bonding might be a beneficial method in preserving the stability of resin-dentin bond strength over time when fiber post is cemented with the tested etch-and-rinse adhesive cements.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.29 no.3
• /
• pp.233-238
• /
• 2004

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of immediate or delayed composite resin filling on dentinal microtensile bond strength (${\mu}TBS$) after applied the adhesive. The coronal dentin of human third molars was exposed. Single-Bond or One-Step was applied on the dentin surfaces. and composite resin were constructed immediately (group 1) or 5min., 10min., 15min., 20min. and 30min. (groups 2-6) after an adhesive was applied. The specimens were sectioned and made bar-shaped. Each surface area of them was about $1\textrm{mm}^2$. The ${\mu}TBS$ test was performed by EZ test. The results were analysed by One-way ANOVA and Tukey's test at 95% significance level. The results suggested that the ${\mu}TBS$ of Single-Bond to dentin was decreased when the composite resin was constructed 20min. and 30min. after Single-Bond was applied. But the ${\mu}TBS$ of One-Step was not affected by delayed composite resin filling.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.42 no.3
• /
• pp.168-175
• /
• 2017

Objectives: This double-blind randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluated the ability of a desensitizing agent and a self-etch adhesive on cervical dentin sensitivity (CDS) after periodontal surgery. Materials and Methods: Ninety hypersensitive teeth of 13 subjects were included in the study. After periodontal surgery, the teeth of each posterior sextant treated with one of the following materials: G1: Clearfil $S^3$ Bond (Kuraray Dental), G2: Gluma Desensitizer (Heraeus Kulzer), and G3: placebo (water). The sensitivity was assessed using evaporative stimuli before treatment (baseline, T0), 1 day after treatment (T1), after 1 week (T2), and 1 month (T3) according to visual analog scale (VAS). Results: Following the treatment, all the 3 groups showed significant reduction of CDS in T1 compared to T0. Reduction of CDS between T1 and T2 was observed only in G1 but there was no significant difference between T2 and T3 in this group. Although we observed a significant difference in T3 compared to T1 and T2 in G2 and G3, comparison of treatment groups in each assessment time showed a significant difference only in T3. According to paired comparison, this was due to the difference between G2 and G3. Conclusions: Dentin sensitivity following periodontal surgery will decrease spontaneously over time, but treating the sensitive teeth with Gluma Desensitizer and Clearfil $S^3$ Bond can have some benefits.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.47 no.2
• /
• pp.15.1-15.18
• /
• 2022

This review aimed to characterize the effect of direct restorative material types and adhesive protocols on marginal adaptation and the bond strength of the interface between the material and the proximal dentin/cementum. An electronic search of 3 databases (the National Library of Medicine [MEDLINE/PubMed], Scopus, and ScienceDirect) was conducted. Studies were included if they evaluated marginal adaptation or bond strength tests for proximal restorations under the cementoenamel junction. Only 16 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. These studies presented a high degree of heterogeneity in terms of the materials used and the methodologies and evaluation criteria of each test; therefore, only a descriptive analysis could be conducted. The included studies were individually evaluated for the risk of bias following predetermined criteria. To summarize the results of the included studies, the type of restorative material affected the test results, whereas the use of different adhesive protocols had an insignificant effect on the results. It could be concluded that various categories of resin-based composites could be a suitable choice for clinicians to elevate proximal dentin/cementum margins, rather than the open sandwich technique with resin-modified glass ionomers. Despite challenges in bonding to proximal dentin/cementum margins, different adhesive protocols provided comparable outcomes.

• Journal of Korean Dental Science
• /
• v.2 no.2
• /
• pp.5-11
• /
• 2009

Objectives : This study investigated the hypothesis that the dentin bond strength of self-etching adhesives (SEAs) may be improved by applying a coat of hydrophobic, neutral adhesive resin in addition to SEA. Method and Materials : The bond strengths of two SEAs - Experimental SEA (EX) and Adper Prompt (AP) - were measured with three bonding protocols. The D/E resin of All-Bond 2 was applied as the hydrophobic, neutral adhesive. Clearfil SE Bond (SE, self-etching primer system) and All-Bond 2 (AB, total etching system) were used as references. The following protocols were used: (1) EX1 (EX 1 coat); (2) EX2 (EX 2 coats); (3) EX+ (EX 1 coat + D/E resin); (4) AP1 (AP 1 coat); (5) AP2 (AP 2 coats); (6) AP+ (AP 1 coat + D/E resin); (7) SE (SE primer + SE bond); (8) SE+ (SE primer + D/E resin); (9) AB (etching + AB primer + D/E resin). Filtek Z250 composite resin was built up and the microtensile bond strength (MTBS) values of the specimens were compared. The fractured surfaces were observed using SEM. Results : When SEA was used as self-etching primer and hydrophobic, neutral adhesive was applied as well, MTBS was significantly higher than that when either one coat or two coats of SEA only were used (p < 0.05). Conclusion : The hydrophobic, neutral adhesive improved the integrity of the bonded interface obtained with SEA.

• Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry
• /
• v.33 no.3
• /
• pp.377-387
• /
• 2006

The objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of multiple adhesive coatings on the thickness of hybrid and adhesive layer and shear bond strength(SBS) of self-etch adhesives and self-etch primer adhesives. The buccal or lingual crown dentin of extracted human molars was used. Self-etch adhesives or self-etch primer adhesives were applied 1, 2 and 3 times on the dentin before light curing. In another group adhesives were reapplied after light curing first layer. Treated surfaces were prepared to measure the thickness of hybrid and adhesive layer with SEM, and shear bond strength to dentin using an Instron machine. The following results were obtained : 1. The adhesive layers increased with the number of coatings(p<0.05) with all adhesives. Adpor Prompt L-Pop and Xeno III were significantly thinner than self-etch primer adhesives (p<0.05). 2. The thickness of hybrid layers increased with the number of coatings (p<0.05). 3. The shear bonding strength of Unifil Bond and Clearfill SE Bond were higher than Scotchbond Multipurpose Plus and Adpor Prompt L-Pop (p<0.05), and similar with Xeno III. 4. The shear bond strength increased significantly with the number of coatings in Adpor Prompt L-Pop(p<0.05), but decreased at 3 times in AdheSE Bond(p>0.05). 5. In Adpor Prompt L-Pop and Xeno III, the shear bond strength decreased when adhesives were reapplied after curing the first adhesive layer.

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.30 no.7 s.278
• /
• pp.508-515
• /
• 1992

• 대한치과보철학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2006.04a
• /
• pp.34-34
• /
• 2006

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.40 no.1
• /
• pp.30-36
• /
• 2015

Objectives: This study was performed to determine whether the combined use of one-bottle self-etch adhesives and composite resins from same manufacturers have better bond strengths than combinations of adhesive and resins from different manufacturers. Materials and Methods: 25 experimental micro-shear bond test groups were made from combinations of five dentin adhesives and five composite resins with extracted human molars stored in saline for 24 hr. Testing was performed using the wire-loop method and a universal testing machine. Bond strength data was statistically analyzed using two way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's post hoc test. Results: Two way ANOVA revealed significant differences for the factors of dentin adhesives and composite resins, and significant interaction effect (p < 0.001). All combinations with Xeno V (Dentsply De Trey) and Clearfil $S^3$ Bond (Kuraray Dental) adhesives showed no significant differences in micro-shear bond strength, but other adhesives showed significant differences depending on the composite resin (p < 0.05). Contrary to the other adhesives, Xeno V and BondForce (Tokuyama Dental) had higher bond strengths with the same manufacturer's composite resin than other manufacturer's composite resin. Conclusions: Not all combinations of adhesive and composite resin by same manufacturers failed to show significantly higher bond strengths than mixed manufacturer combinations.