TY - JOUR
T1 - Effect of Bonding Agents on the Shear Bond Strength of Tooth-colored Restorative Materials to Dentin
T2 - An In Vitro Study
AU - Kuchibhotla, Navya
AU - Sathyamoorthy, Hrishikesh
AU - Balakrishnan, Srinath
AU - Somaraju, Naga Praneeth
AU - Mohan, Aakansha
AU - Ginjupalli, Kishore
AU - Nekkanti, Sridhar
AU - Thomas, Nithya A.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s). 2024 Open Access. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and non-commercial reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. All Rights Reserved.
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - Aim: The aim of the study is to determine the difference in the shear bond strengths to dentin among dental composite (Filtek Z350®, 3M), compomer (Dyract Flow®, Dentsply) and Giomer (Beautifil®, Shofu) with 3MTM Single Bond™ Universal Adhesive (SBU) (7th generation, self-etch, single solution adhesive) and Adper™ Single Bond 2 Adhesive (ASB) (5th generation, total-etch, two solution adhesive). Materials and methods: Sixty extracted human permanent teeth were collected, cleansed of debris, and placed in distilled water. The samples were segregated into two groups depicting the two bonding agents—Adper™ (ASB) and 3MTM Single Bond Universal (SBU) and sub-grouped into three groups depicting the three restorative materials (Composite, Giomer, and Compomer) used. Groups were respresented as follows: Group I—ASB + Composite; Group II—ASB + Giomer; Group III—ASB + Compomer; Group IV—SBU + Giomer; Group V—SBU + Compomer; Group VI—SBU + Composite. After applying the bonding agent as per the manufacturer’s instructions, following which the restorative material was placed. A Universal Testing Machine (Instron 3366, UK) was employed to estimate the shear bond strength of the individual restorative material and shear bond strengths were calculated. Results: Composite bonded with SBU (group VI) displayed the greatest shear strength (11.16 ± 4.22 MPa). Moreover, Giomers and flowable compomers displayed better bond strengths with ASB compared with their SBU-bonded counterparts. Conclusion: These results mark the importance of careful material selection in clinical practice and the bonding agent used to achieve optimal bond strength and enhance the clinical longevity and durability of dental restorations. Clinical significance: From a clinical perspective, to avoid a compressive or a shear failure, it would be preferrable to use a direct composite restorative material with SBU (Single bond universal adhesive, 7th generation) to achieve maximum bond strength.
AB - Aim: The aim of the study is to determine the difference in the shear bond strengths to dentin among dental composite (Filtek Z350®, 3M), compomer (Dyract Flow®, Dentsply) and Giomer (Beautifil®, Shofu) with 3MTM Single Bond™ Universal Adhesive (SBU) (7th generation, self-etch, single solution adhesive) and Adper™ Single Bond 2 Adhesive (ASB) (5th generation, total-etch, two solution adhesive). Materials and methods: Sixty extracted human permanent teeth were collected, cleansed of debris, and placed in distilled water. The samples were segregated into two groups depicting the two bonding agents—Adper™ (ASB) and 3MTM Single Bond Universal (SBU) and sub-grouped into three groups depicting the three restorative materials (Composite, Giomer, and Compomer) used. Groups were respresented as follows: Group I—ASB + Composite; Group II—ASB + Giomer; Group III—ASB + Compomer; Group IV—SBU + Giomer; Group V—SBU + Compomer; Group VI—SBU + Composite. After applying the bonding agent as per the manufacturer’s instructions, following which the restorative material was placed. A Universal Testing Machine (Instron 3366, UK) was employed to estimate the shear bond strength of the individual restorative material and shear bond strengths were calculated. Results: Composite bonded with SBU (group VI) displayed the greatest shear strength (11.16 ± 4.22 MPa). Moreover, Giomers and flowable compomers displayed better bond strengths with ASB compared with their SBU-bonded counterparts. Conclusion: These results mark the importance of careful material selection in clinical practice and the bonding agent used to achieve optimal bond strength and enhance the clinical longevity and durability of dental restorations. Clinical significance: From a clinical perspective, to avoid a compressive or a shear failure, it would be preferrable to use a direct composite restorative material with SBU (Single bond universal adhesive, 7th generation) to achieve maximum bond strength.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85191588330
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85191588330#tab=citedBy
U2 - 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3662
DO - 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3662
M3 - Article
C2 - 38690698
AN - SCOPUS:85191588330
SN - 1526-3711
VL - 25
SP - 245
EP - 249
JO - Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice
JF - Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice
IS - 3
ER -