4.6 Article

Comparison of Different Universal Adhesive Systems on Dentin Bond Strength

期刊

MATERIALS
卷 16, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma16041530

关键词

dental adhesives; shear strength; dentin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aimed to address the long-term bonding performance of universal adhesives and provide a clinical solution with desirable bond strength to dentin. Three bonding agents were evaluated, and it was found that thermal cycling and adhesive system choice significantly affected the shear bond strength. G2-Bond Universal showed the most desirable bond strength to dentin, even after one year in the oral environment.
Over the past few decades, adhesive dentistry has advanced significantly. In light of minimal-invasive dentistry, this novel technique advocates a more conservative cavity design that relies on the efficiency of present enamel-dentine adhesives. The study aimed to address the scientific deficit in understanding the long-term bonding performance of universal adhesives and to provide a new clinical solution with desirable bond strength to dentin. The dentin bond strength of three bonding agents, G2-Bond Universal (GC), Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray), and Scotchbond Universal Plus (3M ESPE), was evaluated following various storage and etching modes. The UltraTester (Ultradent) bond strength testing machine was used to assess shear bond strength. The results showed that thermal cycling and the choice of adhesive system significantly affected the shear bond strength (p = 0.018 and p = 0.001, respectively). Among the three adhesives, Scotchbond Universal Plus had the lowest bond strength value (mean value = 24.78 MPa), while G2-Bond Universal was found to have desirable shear bond strength to dentin compared to the other adhesives, even after one year in the oral environment (mean value = 35.15 MPa). These findings imply that the HEMA-free universal adhesive G2-Bond Universal is the most effective universal adhesive for clinical practices, particularly when applied in the self-etch mode.

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