File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Comparison of microshear bond strengths of four self-etching bonding systems to enamel using two test methods

TitleComparison of microshear bond strengths of four self-etching bonding systems to enamel using two test methods
Authors
KeywordsChemicals And Cas Registry Numbers
Issue Date2006
PublisherWiley-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?
AbstractBackground: 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 Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/90720
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 1.272
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.482
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorFoong, Jen_HK
dc.contributor.authorLee, Ken_HK
dc.contributor.authorNguyen, Cen_HK
dc.contributor.authorTang, Gen_HK
dc.contributor.authorAustin, Den_HK
dc.contributor.authorCh'ng, Cen_HK
dc.contributor.authorBurrow, MFen_HK
dc.contributor.authorThomas, DLen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2010-09-17T10:07:17Z-
dc.date.available2010-09-17T10:07:17Z-
dc.date.issued2006en_HK
dc.identifier.citationAustralian Dental Journal, 2006, v. 51 n. 3, p. 252-257en_HK
dc.identifier.issn0045-0421en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/90720-
dc.description.abstractBackground: 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.languageengen_HK
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0045-0421en_HK
dc.relation.ispartofAustralian Dental Journalen_HK
dc.subjectChemicals And Cas Registry Numbersen_HK
dc.subject.meshAcid Etching, Dental - methodsen_HK
dc.subject.meshComposite Resins - chemistryen_HK
dc.subject.meshDental Bondingen_HK
dc.subject.meshDental Enamel - ultrastructureen_HK
dc.subject.meshDental Stress Analysis - instrumentationen_HK
dc.subject.meshDentin-Bonding Agents - chemistryen_HK
dc.subject.meshHumansen_HK
dc.subject.meshMaterials Testingen_HK
dc.subject.meshMethacrylates - chemistryen_HK
dc.subject.meshShear Strengthen_HK
dc.subject.meshStress, Mechanicalen_HK
dc.subject.meshTemperatureen_HK
dc.subject.meshTime Factorsen_HK
dc.subject.meshWater - chemistryen_HK
dc.titleComparison of microshear bond strengths of four self-etching bonding systems to enamel using two test methodsen_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.emailBurrow, MF:mfburr58@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityBurrow, MF=rp01306en_HK
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.pmid17037893-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-33749509410en_HK
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-33749509410&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume51en_HK
dc.identifier.issue3en_HK
dc.identifier.spage252en_HK
dc.identifier.epage257en_HK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000240903900009-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridFoong, J=40161279900en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLee, K=40161689100en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridNguyen, C=7203041872en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridTang, G=40162402600en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridAustin, D=40160926100en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridCh'ng, C=40161174100en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridBurrow, MF=7005876730en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridThomas, DL=7601530814en_HK

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats