File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.2341/10-140-L
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-80855133403
- PMID: 21864124
- WOS: WOS:000296955300007
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Bonding to glass ionomer cements using resinbased adhesives
Title | Bonding to glass ionomer cements using resinbased adhesives | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Authors | |||||
Issue Date | 2011 | ||||
Publisher | Operative Dentistry. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.jopdent.org | ||||
Citation | Operative Dentistry, 2011, v. 36 n. 6, p. 618-625 How to Cite? | ||||
Abstract | Objective: This study compared the microshear bond strengths (MSBS) of four self-etching adhesives (Adper Scotchbond SE [SSE], Clearfil SE Bond [CSE], Clearfil S 3 Bond [CS3] and One Coat 7.0 [OC]) and an etch-and-rinse adhesive (Adper Single Bond Plus [SB]) when bonded to two conventional glass ionomer cements (GICs) (Fuji IX GP EXTRA and Riva Self Cure). The null hypothesis tested was there is no difference in the adhesive ability of an etch-and-rinse adhesive and self-etching adhesives when bonded to GIC for up to 6 months. Methods: The GICs were embedded in type III dental stone and wet ground with 1200-grit SiC paper. Twenty specimens were bonded for each adhesive according to manufacturers' instructions with a 1.5-mm bonding diameter. Specimens were stored at 100% humidity for 24 hours, 1 month, or 6 months. Microshear bond strengths were obtained using a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The results were calculated and analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey HSD test. Results: SB had significantly lower MSBS than the four self-etching adhesives for all storage periods. MSBS at 6 months for SB was significantly lower than at 1 month. There were no significant differences in MSBS among the selfetching adhesives. Cohesive failure within GIC was the most common failure mode observed. Conclusions: SB showed a lower bond strength than the self-etching adhesives when bonded to conventional GICs for all storage periods. This might be a result of the phosphoric acid etching. However, cohesive strength of GIC was a limiting factor for the MSBS outcomes. © 2011 Operative Dentistry, Inc. | ||||
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/154689 | ||||
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 1.4 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.617 | ||||
ISI Accession Number ID |
Funding Information: This project was supported by the Australian Dental Research Foundation Undergraduate Research Grant. The authors would also like to thank Mr Ilya Zalizniak at the Melbourne Dental School, The University of Melbourne for his assistance. | ||||
References |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Zhang, Y | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Burrow, MF | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Palamara, JEA | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Thomas, CDL | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2012-08-08T08:26:55Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2012-08-08T08:26:55Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2011 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Operative Dentistry, 2011, v. 36 n. 6, p. 618-625 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 0361-7734 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/154689 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Objective: This study compared the microshear bond strengths (MSBS) of four self-etching adhesives (Adper Scotchbond SE [SSE], Clearfil SE Bond [CSE], Clearfil S 3 Bond [CS3] and One Coat 7.0 [OC]) and an etch-and-rinse adhesive (Adper Single Bond Plus [SB]) when bonded to two conventional glass ionomer cements (GICs) (Fuji IX GP EXTRA and Riva Self Cure). The null hypothesis tested was there is no difference in the adhesive ability of an etch-and-rinse adhesive and self-etching adhesives when bonded to GIC for up to 6 months. Methods: The GICs were embedded in type III dental stone and wet ground with 1200-grit SiC paper. Twenty specimens were bonded for each adhesive according to manufacturers' instructions with a 1.5-mm bonding diameter. Specimens were stored at 100% humidity for 24 hours, 1 month, or 6 months. Microshear bond strengths were obtained using a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The results were calculated and analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey HSD test. Results: SB had significantly lower MSBS than the four self-etching adhesives for all storage periods. MSBS at 6 months for SB was significantly lower than at 1 month. There were no significant differences in MSBS among the selfetching adhesives. Cohesive failure within GIC was the most common failure mode observed. Conclusions: SB showed a lower bond strength than the self-etching adhesives when bonded to conventional GICs for all storage periods. This might be a result of the phosphoric acid etching. However, cohesive strength of GIC was a limiting factor for the MSBS outcomes. © 2011 Operative Dentistry, Inc. | en_US |
dc.language | eng | en_US |
dc.publisher | Operative Dentistry. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.jopdent.org | en_US |
dc.relation.ispartof | Operative Dentistry | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Composite Resins | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Dental Bonding | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Dental Cavity Lining | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Dental Etching - Methods | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Dental Stress Analysis | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Glass Ionomer Cements | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Materials Testing | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Resin Cements - Chemistry | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Shear Strength | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Time Factors | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Water | en_US |
dc.title | Bonding to glass ionomer cements using resinbased adhesives | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.identifier.email | Burrow, MF:mfburr58@hku.hk | en_US |
dc.identifier.authority | Burrow, MF=rp01306 | en_US |
dc.description.nature | link_to_subscribed_fulltext | en_US |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.2341/10-140-L | en_US |
dc.identifier.pmid | 21864124 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-80855133403 | en_US |
dc.relation.references | http://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-80855133403&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpage | en_US |
dc.identifier.volume | 36 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issue | 6 | en_US |
dc.identifier.spage | 618 | en_US |
dc.identifier.epage | 625 | en_US |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1559-2863 | - |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000296955300007 | - |
dc.publisher.place | United States | en_US |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Zhang, Y=54407847700 | en_US |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Burrow, MF=7005876730 | en_US |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Palamara, JEA=36622764100 | en_US |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Thomas, CDL=13006440800 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issnl | 0361-7734 | - |