Microtensile dentin adhesive bond strength under different positive pulpal pressures
- PMID: 20178212
- PMCID: PMC4041614
Microtensile dentin adhesive bond strength under different positive pulpal pressures
Abstract
Purpose: To measure the in vitro dentin microtensile bond strength of established adhesives under different hydrostatic pulpal pressures.
Methods: After IRB approval, 24 human extracted third molars were randomly distributed into four adhesive treatment groups: Clearfil-SE (self-etch, water-based), One-Step Plus (total-etch, acetone-based), Peak-SE (self-etch, ethanol-based) and PQ1 (total-etch, ethanol-based, Ultradent). Additionally each group was assigned to be restored under 0.0, 5.0 or 15.0 cm of water pressure. Coronal enamel was removed using 60, 240 & 320-grit wet sandpaper until only dentin was visible. After adhesive placement Filtek Z250 Universal Restorative was applied in five 1.0 mm increments. All teeth were tested at 24 hours for microtensile bond strength and examined for mode of failure under light microscopy (x40).
Results: A two-factor ANOVA found a statistically significant effect for adhesives, water pressures and their interaction (P < or = 0.001). Post hoc pairwise comparisons of simple effects using the Ryan-Einot-Gabriel-Welsch Range procedure showed Clearfil-SE stronger than the other adhesives at 5.0 and at 15.0 cm water pressure (P < 0.07). One-Step Plus was weaker than PQ1 and Peak-SE at 5.0 and at 15.0 cm water pressure (P < 0.07). PQ1 and Peak-SE at 0.0, 5.0 and 15.0 cm were not significantly different from each other (P > 0.07). For water pressure comparisons, Clearfil-SE was stronger at 0.0 vs. 5.0 cm water pressure (P < 0.07), while there was no difference for Clearfil-SE between 5.0 and 15.0 cm water pressure (P > 0.07). One-Step Plus was significantly stronger at 0.0 cm water pressure than at 5.0 and 15.0 cm water pressure (P < 0.07), and at 5.0 cm water pressure it was stronger than at 15.0 cm pressure (P < 0.07). Both Peak-SE and PQ1 at 0.0 water pressure were significantly stronger than at 5.0 and 15.0 cm water pressure. There was no difference in strength between 5.0 and 15.0 cm water pressure for either of the two adhesives (P > 0.07).
Conflict of interest statement
Figures


Similar articles
-
Slow progression of dentin bond degradation during one-year water storage under simulated pulpal pressure.J Dent. 2010 Oct;38(10):802-10. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2010.06.012. Epub 2010 Jul 3. J Dent. 2010. PMID: 20599465
-
Effect of hydrostatic pulpal water pressure on microtensile bond strength of self-etch adhesives to dentin.Am J Dent. 2008 Aug;21(4):233-8. Am J Dent. 2008. PMID: 18795519
-
Effects of blood contamination on microtensile bond strength to dentin of three self-etch adhesives.Oper Dent. 2010 May-Jun;35(3):330-6. doi: 10.2341/09-244-L. Oper Dent. 2010. PMID: 20533634 Clinical Trial.
-
Bond durability of adhesives containing modified-monomer with/without-fluoride after aging in artificial saliva and under intrapulpal pressure simulation.Oper Dent. 2013 Jan-Feb;38(1):48-56. doi: 10.2341/11-389-L. Epub 2012 Jul 7. Oper Dent. 2013. PMID: 22770483
-
In vitro microtensile bond strength of four adhesives tested at the gingival and pulpal walls of Class II restorations.J Am Dent Assoc. 2006 Oct;137(10):1414-8. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2006.0054. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006. PMID: 17012721 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
Cited by
-
The Effect of Energy Densities on the Shear Bond Strength of Self-Adhering Flowable Composite to Er:YAG Pretreated Dentin.Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:6507924. doi: 10.1155/2016/6507924. Epub 2016 Oct 17. Biomed Res Int. 2016. PMID: 27830151 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Sengun A, Ozturk B, Ozer F. The effect of simulated intrapulpal pressure on bond strength to enamel and dentine. J Oral Rehabil. 2003;30:550–555. - PubMed
-
- Purk J, Dusevich V, Glaros A, Spencer P, Eick J. In-vivo vs. in-vitro microtensile bond strength of axial vs gingival cavity preparation walls in class II resin-based composite restorations. J Am Dent Assoc. 2004;135:185–193. - PubMed
-
- Tay FR, Pashley DH. Aggressiveness of contemporary self-etching systems. I: Depth of penetration beyond dentin smear layers. Dent Mater. 2001;17:296–308. - PubMed
-
- Tay FR, Pashley DH. Water treeing. A potential mechanism for degradation of dentin adhesives. Am J Dent. 2003;16:6–12. - PubMed
-
- Spencer P, Wang Y. Adhesive phase separation at the dentin interface under wet bonding conditions. J Biomed Mater Res. 2002;62:447–456. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous