Comparative evaluation of 3 microbond strength tests using 4 adhesive systems: Mechanical, finite element, and failure analysis.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Bond strength (BS) values from in vitro studies are useful when dentists are selecting an adhesive system, but there is no ideal measuring method. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the influence of the evaluation method in the BS between dentin and composite resin. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Molars with exposed superficial dentin (N=240) were divided into 3 groups according to the test: microtensile (µTBS), microshear (µSBS), and micropush-out (µPBS). Each one was subdivided into 4 groups according to the adhesive system: total etch, 3- and 2-step; and self-etch, 2- and 1-step). For the µPBS test, a conical cavity was prepared and restored with composite resin. An occlusal slice (1.5 mm in thickness) was obtained from each tooth. For the µSBS test, a composite resin cylinder (1 mm in diameter) was built on the dentin surface of each tooth. For the µTBS test, a 2-increment composite resin cylinder was built on the dentin surface, and beams with a sectional area of 0.5 mm2 were obtained. Each subgroup was divided into 2 (n=10) as the specimens were tested after 7 days and 1 year of water storage. The specimens were submitted to load, and the failure recorded in units of megapascals. Original BS values from the µTBS and µSBS tests were normalized for the area from µPBS specimens. Original and normalized results were submitted to a 3-way ANOVA (α=.05). The correlation among mechanical results, stress distribution, and failure pattern was investigated. RESULTS: Significant differences (P<.05) were found among the adhesive systems and methods within both the original and normalized data but not between the storage times (P>.05). Within the 7 days of storage, the original BS values from µTBS were significantly higher (P<.001) than those from µPBS and µSBS. After 1 year, µSBS presented significantly lower results (P<.001). However, after the normalization for area, the BS values of the µTBS and µPBS tests were similar, and both were higher (P<.001) than that of µSBS in both storage times. In the µSBS and µTBS specimens, cohesive and adhesive failures were observed, whereas µPBS presented 100% of adhesive failures. The failure modes were compatible with the stress distribution. CONCLUSIONS: The storage time did not affect the results, but differences were found among the adhesives and methods. For comparisons of bond strength from tests with different bonding areas, the normalization for area seemed essential. The microshear bond test should not be used for bond strength evaluation, and the microtensile test needs improvement to enable reliable results regarding stress concentration and failure mode. The micropush-out test may be considered more reliable than the microtensile in the bond strength investigation, as demonstrated by the uniform stress concentration and adhesive failure pattern.

Effect of chlorhexidine application on microtensile bond strength to dentin.

This study evaluated the effect on microtensile bond strength (microTBS) of chlorhexidine application to dentin at different times during an indirect restoration luting procedure. Sixty bovine incisors had their superficial dentin subjected to 0.12% and 2% chlorhexidine solutions for 15 seconds before, during and after 37% phosphoric acid etching, resulting in six groups (n=10): 1) 0.12% chlorhexidine + etching; 2) 2% chlorhexidine + etching; 3) etching + 0.12% chlorhexidine; 4) etching + 2% chlorhexidine; 5) etching with 2% chlorhexidine; 6) etching without chlorhexidine (control). An adhesive system (Adper Single Bond 2) was applied and an indirect resin composite restoration (Filtek Z250) was luted using dual cured resin cement (Rely X ARC). After 24 hours of water storage, the specimens were tested by microtensile bond test (microTBS) at 0.5 mm/minute in a universal testing machine. The data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA (alpha=0.05), demonstrating no significant differences among the groups. The microTBS values in MPa were: 6: 22.83+/-3.53; 5: 22.4+/-3.52; 2: 21.62+/-2.5; 1: 21.28+/-3.17; 3: 19.62+/-2.05; 4: 19.55+/-2.34. The use of chlorhexidine at concentrations of 0.12% and 2% before, after or associated with acid etching did not significantly affect the microTBS values to dentin.

Influence of method and period of storage on the microtensile bond strength of indirect composite resin restorations to dentine.

This study evaluated the influence of the method and period of storage on the adhesive bond strength of indirect composite resin to bovine dentin. Ninety bovine incisors were stored in three different solutions: 0.2% thymol, 10% formalin, and 0.2% sodium azide, during 3 periods of storage: 7 days, 30 days and 6 months, resulting in 9 groups (n = 10). The roots were cut off and the buccal surface was ground with #600-grit silicon carbide paper. The surface was conditioned with 37% phosphoric acid for 15 s and a composite resin restoration (TPH Spectrum) was fixed using a one-bottle adhesive system (Adper Single Bond) and a dual-cured resinous cement (Rely X ARC) under a load of 500 g for 5 minutes. The samples were serially cut perpendicular to the bonded interface to obtain slices of 1.2 mm in thickness. Each slab was trimmed with a cylindrical diamond bur resulting in an hourglass shape with a cross-sectional area of approximately 1 mm(2). The microtensile bond strength (microTBS) testing was performed in a testing machine (EMIC 2000 DL) at a 0.5 mm/minute crosshead-speed until failure. After fracture, the specimens were examined under SEM to analyze the mode of fracture. muTBS Means were expressed in MPa and the data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA (3X3) and the Tukey test (alpha = 0.05). The storage times of 7 and 30 days produced no significant difference irrespective of the solution type. The formalin and thymol solutions, however, did have a negative influence on bond strength when the teeth were stored for 6 months.

Influence of method and period of storage on the microtensile bond strength of indirect composite resin restorations to dentine

This study evaluated the influence of the method and period of storage on the adhesive bond strength of indirect composite resin to bovine dentin. Ninety bovine incisors were stored in three different solutions: 0.2 percent thymol, 10 percent formalin, and 0.2 percent sodium azide, during 3 periods of storage: 7 days, 30 days and 6 months, resulting in 9 groups (n = 10). The roots were cut off and the buccal surface was ground with #600-grit silicon carbide paper. The surface was conditioned with 37 percent phosphoric acid for 15 s and a composite resin restoration (TPH Spectrum) was fixed using a one-bottle adhesive system (Adper Single Bond) and a dual-cured resinous cement (Rely X ARC) under a load of 500 g for 5 minutes. The samples were serially cut perpendicular to the bonded interface to obtain slices of 1.2 mm in thickness. Each slab was trimmed with a cylindrical diamond bur resulting in an hourglass shape with a cross-sectional area of approximately 1 mm². The microtensile bond strength (μTBS) testing was performed in a testing machine (EMIC 2000 DL) at a 0.5 mm/minute crosshead-speed until failure. After fracture, the specimens were examined under SEM to analyze the mode of fracture. μTBS Means were expressed in MPa and the data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA (3X3) and the Tukey test (α = 0.05). The storage times of 7 and 30 days produced no significant difference irrespective of the solution type. The formalin and thymol solutions, however, did have a negative influence on bond strength when the teeth were stored for 6 months.