File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Bonding to glass ionomer cements using resinbased adhesives

TitleBonding to glass ionomer cements using resinbased adhesives
Authors
Issue Date2011
PublisherOperative 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?
AbstractObjective: 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 Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/154689
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 2.819
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.641
ISI Accession Number ID
Funding AgencyGrant Number
Australian Dental Research Foundation
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 FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorZhang, Yen_US
dc.contributor.authorBurrow, MFen_US
dc.contributor.authorPalamara, JEAen_US
dc.contributor.authorThomas, CDLen_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-08-08T08:26:55Z-
dc.date.available2012-08-08T08:26:55Z-
dc.date.issued2011en_US
dc.identifier.citationOperative Dentistry, 2011, v. 36 n. 6, p. 618-625en_US
dc.identifier.issn0361-7734en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/154689-
dc.description.abstractObjective: 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.languageengen_US
dc.publisherOperative Dentistry. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.jopdent.orgen_US
dc.relation.ispartofOperative Dentistryen_US
dc.subject.meshComposite Resinsen_US
dc.subject.meshDental Bondingen_US
dc.subject.meshDental Cavity Liningen_US
dc.subject.meshDental Etching - Methodsen_US
dc.subject.meshDental Stress Analysisen_US
dc.subject.meshGlass Ionomer Cementsen_US
dc.subject.meshMaterials Testingen_US
dc.subject.meshResin Cements - Chemistryen_US
dc.subject.meshShear Strengthen_US
dc.subject.meshTime Factorsen_US
dc.subject.meshWateren_US
dc.titleBonding to glass ionomer cements using resinbased adhesivesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailBurrow, MF:mfburr58@hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityBurrow, MF=rp01306en_US
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltexten_US
dc.identifier.doi10.2341/10-140-Len_US
dc.identifier.pmid21864124-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-80855133403en_US
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-80855133403&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_US
dc.identifier.volume36en_US
dc.identifier.issue6en_US
dc.identifier.spage618en_US
dc.identifier.epage625en_US
dc.identifier.eissn1559-2863-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000296955300007-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridZhang, Y=54407847700en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridBurrow, MF=7005876730en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridPalamara, JEA=36622764100en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridThomas, CDL=13006440800en_US

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats