File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2006.tb00438.x
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-33749509410
- PMID: 17037893
- WOS: WOS:000240903900009
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Comparison of microshear bond strengths of four self-etching bonding systems to enamel using two test methods
Title | Comparison of microshear bond strengths of four self-etching bonding systems to enamel using two test methods |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Chemicals And Cas Registry Numbers |
Issue Date | 2006 |
Publisher | Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0045-0421 |
Citation | Australian Dental Journal, 2006, v. 51 n. 3, p. 252-257 How to Cite? |
Abstract | Background: Recent advances in enamel and dentine adhesive technology have resulted in the emergence of many new adhesive systems. Self-etching bonding systems do not require a separate etching step and the newest systems are the "all-in-one" systems which combine etching, priming and bonding into a single application. This study reports laboratory enamel microshear bond strengths of a self-etching priming and three all-in-one systems and also evaluates two different microshear bond test methods. Methods: One hundred and nineteen enamel specimens were bonded (0.8mm diameter) with either Clearfil Protect Bond (Kuraray), Xeno III (Dentsply), G Bond (GC) or One-Up Bond F (Tokuyama) using Palfique Estelite resin composite and stored in 37°C water for seven days. The microshear bond test method used either a blade or wire to apply the shear stress. Results were analysed with one-way ANOVA and post hoc (Tukey) multiple comparison analysis. Results: Clearfil Protect Bond demonstrated higher and more consistent bond strengths than Xeno III, G Bond or One-Up Bond F. The wire method showed much greater reliability in results, with a coefficient of variation half that of the blade method. Conclusions: All-in-one adhesives seem to be less reliable than the two-step self-etching priming adhesive when bonding to enamel. Test method can significantly affect results in the microshear bond test method. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/90720 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 1.9 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.597 |
ISI Accession Number ID | |
References |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Foong, J | en_HK |
dc.contributor.author | Lee, K | en_HK |
dc.contributor.author | Nguyen, C | en_HK |
dc.contributor.author | Tang, G | en_HK |
dc.contributor.author | Austin, D | en_HK |
dc.contributor.author | Ch'ng, C | en_HK |
dc.contributor.author | Burrow, MF | en_HK |
dc.contributor.author | Thomas, DL | en_HK |
dc.date.accessioned | 2010-09-17T10:07:17Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2010-09-17T10:07:17Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2006 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.citation | Australian Dental Journal, 2006, v. 51 n. 3, p. 252-257 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.issn | 0045-0421 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/90720 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Background: Recent advances in enamel and dentine adhesive technology have resulted in the emergence of many new adhesive systems. Self-etching bonding systems do not require a separate etching step and the newest systems are the "all-in-one" systems which combine etching, priming and bonding into a single application. This study reports laboratory enamel microshear bond strengths of a self-etching priming and three all-in-one systems and also evaluates two different microshear bond test methods. Methods: One hundred and nineteen enamel specimens were bonded (0.8mm diameter) with either Clearfil Protect Bond (Kuraray), Xeno III (Dentsply), G Bond (GC) or One-Up Bond F (Tokuyama) using Palfique Estelite resin composite and stored in 37°C water for seven days. The microshear bond test method used either a blade or wire to apply the shear stress. Results were analysed with one-way ANOVA and post hoc (Tukey) multiple comparison analysis. Results: Clearfil Protect Bond demonstrated higher and more consistent bond strengths than Xeno III, G Bond or One-Up Bond F. The wire method showed much greater reliability in results, with a coefficient of variation half that of the blade method. Conclusions: All-in-one adhesives seem to be less reliable than the two-step self-etching priming adhesive when bonding to enamel. Test method can significantly affect results in the microshear bond test method. | en_HK |
dc.language | eng | en_HK |
dc.publisher | Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0045-0421 | en_HK |
dc.relation.ispartof | Australian Dental Journal | en_HK |
dc.subject | Chemicals And Cas Registry Numbers | en_HK |
dc.subject.mesh | Acid Etching, Dental - methods | en_HK |
dc.subject.mesh | Composite Resins - chemistry | en_HK |
dc.subject.mesh | Dental Bonding | en_HK |
dc.subject.mesh | Dental Enamel - ultrastructure | en_HK |
dc.subject.mesh | Dental Stress Analysis - instrumentation | en_HK |
dc.subject.mesh | Dentin-Bonding Agents - chemistry | en_HK |
dc.subject.mesh | Humans | en_HK |
dc.subject.mesh | Materials Testing | en_HK |
dc.subject.mesh | Methacrylates - chemistry | en_HK |
dc.subject.mesh | Shear Strength | en_HK |
dc.subject.mesh | Stress, Mechanical | en_HK |
dc.subject.mesh | Temperature | en_HK |
dc.subject.mesh | Time Factors | en_HK |
dc.subject.mesh | Water - chemistry | en_HK |
dc.title | Comparison of microshear bond strengths of four self-etching bonding systems to enamel using two test methods | en_HK |
dc.type | Article | en_HK |
dc.identifier.email | Burrow, MF:mfburr58@hku.hk | en_HK |
dc.identifier.authority | Burrow, MF=rp01306 | en_HK |
dc.description.nature | link_to_subscribed_fulltext | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2006.tb00438.x | - |
dc.identifier.pmid | 17037893 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-33749509410 | en_HK |
dc.relation.references | http://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-33749509410&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpage | en_HK |
dc.identifier.volume | 51 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.issue | 3 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.spage | 252 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.epage | 257 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000240903900009 | - |
dc.publisher.place | United Kingdom | en_HK |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Foong, J=40161279900 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Lee, K=40161689100 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Nguyen, C=7203041872 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Tang, G=40162402600 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Austin, D=40160926100 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Ch'ng, C=40161174100 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Burrow, MF=7005876730 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Thomas, DL=7601530814 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.issnl | 0045-0421 | - |