File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Conference Paper: Microtensile Bond Strength of MDP-Containing Universal Adhesives to Dentin

TitleMicrotensile Bond Strength of MDP-Containing Universal Adhesives to Dentin
Authors
Issue Date2017
PublisherInternational Association for Dental Research. The Proceedings' web site is located at https://iadr2017.zerista.com/
Citation
The 95th General Session and Exhibition of the International Association for Dental Research (IADR) held with the 46th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Dental Research (AADR) and the 41st Annual Meeting of the Canadian Association for Dental Research (CADR), San Francisco, CA., 22-25 March 2017 How to Cite?
AbstractObjectives: The aim of this study is to evaluate the microtensile bond strength (µTBS) of different MDP-containing universal adhesives to dentin. Methods: A total of thirty-six freshly extracted caries-free human permanent molars were divided into six groups according to type of adhesive and etching mode employed which is either etch-and-rinse (ER) or self-etch (SE). The groups were bonded with Adper Single Bond (AD) and Easy One Bond (EO) as controls; Adhese Universal (AU) and Scotchbond Universal (SU) in both etching modes. Bonded specimens were stored in deionized water for 24 hr (n=6). Composite/dentin beams were prepared (1 mm2). µTBS testing were performed. µTBS data were statistically analyzed using two-way ANOVA and multiple comparison post hoc tests. Results: The two-way ANOVA revealed that the µTBS was significantly affected by the “type of adhesive material” (p<0.05) and “method of dentin surface treatment” (p<0.05). Tukey post hoc multiple comparison test showed that there was no significant difference in µTBS between SU ER and both SU SE and AD ER (p>0.05). However, there were significant difference in µTBS between AU ER and both AU SE and AD ER (p<0.05). Comparison among both materials showed that the µTBS of AU ER was significantly higher than SU ER (p>0.05). µTBS of EO SE was significantly lower than all groups (p<0.05). Conclusions: Application of an etching step prior to MDP-containing SU does not affect its µTBS while application of an etching step prior to MDP-containing AU improves its µTBS. Also, MDP-containing AU showed improved µTBS than MDP-containing SU when both used in ER mode.
DescriptionPoster Session: Dental Materials: Limitations and Advantages of Universal Adhesives I - Presentation ID: 3845
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/245470

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorElkaffas, A-
dc.contributor.authorHamama, HHHE-
dc.contributor.authorMahmoud, SH-
dc.date.accessioned2017-09-18T02:11:16Z-
dc.date.available2017-09-18T02:11:16Z-
dc.date.issued2017-
dc.identifier.citationThe 95th General Session and Exhibition of the International Association for Dental Research (IADR) held with the 46th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Dental Research (AADR) and the 41st Annual Meeting of the Canadian Association for Dental Research (CADR), San Francisco, CA., 22-25 March 2017-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/245470-
dc.descriptionPoster Session: Dental Materials: Limitations and Advantages of Universal Adhesives I - Presentation ID: 3845-
dc.description.abstractObjectives: The aim of this study is to evaluate the microtensile bond strength (µTBS) of different MDP-containing universal adhesives to dentin. Methods: A total of thirty-six freshly extracted caries-free human permanent molars were divided into six groups according to type of adhesive and etching mode employed which is either etch-and-rinse (ER) or self-etch (SE). The groups were bonded with Adper Single Bond (AD) and Easy One Bond (EO) as controls; Adhese Universal (AU) and Scotchbond Universal (SU) in both etching modes. Bonded specimens were stored in deionized water for 24 hr (n=6). Composite/dentin beams were prepared (1 mm2). µTBS testing were performed. µTBS data were statistically analyzed using two-way ANOVA and multiple comparison post hoc tests. Results: The two-way ANOVA revealed that the µTBS was significantly affected by the “type of adhesive material” (p<0.05) and “method of dentin surface treatment” (p<0.05). Tukey post hoc multiple comparison test showed that there was no significant difference in µTBS between SU ER and both SU SE and AD ER (p>0.05). However, there were significant difference in µTBS between AU ER and both AU SE and AD ER (p<0.05). Comparison among both materials showed that the µTBS of AU ER was significantly higher than SU ER (p>0.05). µTBS of EO SE was significantly lower than all groups (p<0.05). Conclusions: Application of an etching step prior to MDP-containing SU does not affect its µTBS while application of an etching step prior to MDP-containing AU improves its µTBS. Also, MDP-containing AU showed improved µTBS than MDP-containing SU when both used in ER mode.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherInternational Association for Dental Research. The Proceedings' web site is located at https://iadr2017.zerista.com/-
dc.relation.ispartofIADR/AADR/CADR 2017 General Session & Exhibition-
dc.titleMicrotensile Bond Strength of MDP-Containing Universal Adhesives to Dentin-
dc.typeConference_Paper-
dc.identifier.emailHamama, HHHE: hamama@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityHamama, HHHE=rp02187-
dc.identifier.doihttps://iadr2017.zerista.com/poster/member/76157-
dc.identifier.hkuros277881-
dc.publisher.placeUnited States-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats