4.6 Article

Effect of Conventional Adhesive Application or Co-Curing Technique on Dentin Bond Strength

期刊

MATERIALS
卷 14, 期 24, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma14247664

关键词

dentin bond strength; shear bond strength; co-curing; reliability analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to assess the effect of two different adhesive application methods on shear dentin bond strength using three various adhesive systems. It was found that the co-curing method diminished bond reliability, and different application techniques exhibit varying bond strengths to dentin.
The aim of this in vitro study was to assess the effect of two different adhesive application methods on shear dentin bond strength (ISO 29022) using three various adhesive systems. A mid-coronal section of 77 intact third human molars with fully developed apices was made to create flat bonding substrates. The materials used in the study were Excite F (Ivoclar Vivadent), Prime&Bond Universal (Dentsply Sirona) and G-Premio Bond (GC). The application of each adhesion system was performed in two different ways. In the first group, the bonding agent was light cured immediately after the application (conventional method), while in the second group the adhesive and composite were cured concurrently (co-curing method). A total of 180 specimens were prepared (3 adhesives x 2 method of application x 30 specimens per experimental group), stored at 37 degrees C in distilled water and fractured in shear mode after 1 week. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA and Weibull statistics. The highest bond strength was obtained for Prime&Bond conventional (21.7 MPa), whilst the lowest bond strength was observed when co-curing was used (particularly, Excite F 12.2 MPa). The results showed a significant difference between conventional and co-curing methods in all materials. According to reliability analysis, the co-curing method diminished bond reliability. Different application techniques exhibit different bond strengths to dentin.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据