Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2009 Dec;22(6):357-60.

Microtensile dentin adhesive bond strength under different positive pulpal pressures

John H Purk  1 , Vladimir Dusevich, Jared Atwood, Becca Dawson Spencer, Dustin Kruse, Tyler Webb, Angela Williams, Daniel Tira
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Microtensile dentin adhesive bond strength under different positive pulpal pressures

John H Purk et al. Am J Dent. 2009 Dec.

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).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure statement: The authors have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Clearfil-SE at x5000 shows fracture through the hybrid layer. The microtensile bond strength was 65.0 MPa. Water pressure was 5.0 cm.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
PQ1 at x5000 shows fracture through the adhesive-hybrid layer interface. The microtensile bond strength was 7.8 MPa. Water pressure was 5.0 cm. Note inability of adhesive to completely cover dentin due to water pressure from tubules.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. 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
    1. 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
    1. 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
    1. Tay FR, Pashley DH. Water treeing. A potential mechanism for degradation of dentin adhesives. Am J Dent. 2003;16:6–12. - PubMed
    1. 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

LinkOut - more resources