COMPOSITE SHEAR BOND STRENGTH TO DRY AND WET ENAMEL WITH THREE SELF-ETCH ADHESIVES

Q: How can I download an article?

To download an article from SID, first log in to the site, search for the article title, and click on the 'Download Article' option.

Q: How can I download an ISI article?

To download an ISI article on SID, enter the keyword or article title in the search bar, view the relevant results, click on the desired article, and select the 'Download Article' option.

Q: How can I access the SID database?

To access the SID database, visit SID.ir, create an account, and log in to access scientific resources.

Q: Is downloading articles from SID free?

Some articles on SID are available for free, while others require payment. Details are specified on the article's page.

SHAFIEE F.; MOTAMEDI M.; ZARGHAM S.

مرکز اطلاعات علمی Scientific Information Database (SID) - Trusted Source for Research and Academic Resources

Journal Paper

Paper Information

Journal: Journal of Dental Medicine Year:2006 | Volume:18 | Issue:4 (45) Page(s): 31-41

Download Full-Text

Persian Verion

View:

591

Download:

Cites:

Information Journal Paper

Title

COMPOSITE SHEAR BOND STRENGTH TO DRY AND WET ENAMEL WITH THREE SELF-ETCH ADHESIVES

Author(s)

SHAFIEE F. | MOTAMEDI M. | ZARGHAM S. | Issue Writer Certificate

Keywords

WET ENAMELQ4

DRY ENAMELQ4

SHEAR BOND STRENGTHQ3

SELF-ETCH ADHESIVE SYSTEMQ4

Abstract

Background and Aim: The bonding mechanisms of self etching primers, based upon the simultaneous etching and priming of dentin, simplifies the bonding technique, but the efficiency of these systems is still controversial. This study compared the SHEAR BOND STRENGTH of three self etch adhesive systems in dry and wet conditions. Materials and Method: In this experimental study, 77 intact bovine lower incisors with flat 600 grit sanded enamel surface were fixed in acrylic molds and divided into 7 groups, of 11 teeth. The enamel surfaces were treated according to a special procedure as follows: Group 1: Prompt L-Pop (PLP) in dry condition, Group 2: Prompt L-Pop in wet condition, Group 3: Clearfield SE Bond (CSEB) in dry condition, Group 4: Clearfield SE Bond in wet condition, Group 5: iBond (iB) in dry condition, Group 6: iBond in wet condition, Group 7: Margin Bond (Control) in dry condition. Surfaces were air dried for ten seconds, or blot dried in wet condition. Composite resin was bonded on the enamel and built up by applying a cylindric teflon split mold (4 mm height 2mm diameter). After 24 hours storage in dionized water at room temperature, all specimens were thermocycled and shear bond test was employed by a universal testing machine (Instron) with a cross-head speed of 1mm/min. The SHEAR BOND STRENGTH was recorded in MPa and data were analyzed with ANOVA and Scheffe statistical tests. P<0.05 was considered as statistically significant. The mode of failure was examined under a stereomicroscope. Results: 1- SHEAR BOND STRENGTH of CSEB in dry condition (21.5 ± 4.8 MPa) was significantly higher than PLP and iB groups (p<0.0001). 2- SHEAR BOND STRENGTH of iB and PLP groups in dry condition (9.60 ± 2.2, 9.49 ± 3 MPa) were significantly lower than CSEB and control (2.99 ± 5.1 MPa) (P<0.0001). 3- There was no significant difference between PLP and iB groups in dry condition (P=1). 4- SHEAR BOND STRENGTH of CSEB in wet condition (21.8 ± 3 MPa) was significantly higher than PLP and iB groups (P=0.0). 5- SHEAR BOND STRENGTH of CSEB (10.8 ± 3 MPa) and PLP (10.6 ± 4 MPa) in wet condition were significantly lower than CSEB and Control groups (P=0.0). 6- There was no significant difference between PLP and iB groups in wet condition (P=0.99). 7- SHEAR BOND STRENGTH of the three adhesives had no significant difference in dry and wet conditions (PLP: P= 0.53, CSEB: P= 0.84, iB: P= 0.53). The mode of failure in two groups of PLP and two groups of iB was predominantly in the adhesive bond and in the two groups of CSEB, mixed failure (adhesive with cohesive in composite) was predominantly observed. Conclusion: CSEB had higher while iB and PLP showed lower bond strength to ground enamel. The three self-etch adhesives in this study did not show technique sensitivity to wet and DRY ENAMEL.

Cites

No record.

References

No record.

Cite

APA: Copy

SHAFIEE, F., MOTAMEDI, M., & ZARGHAM, S.. (2006). COMPOSITE SHEAR BOND STRENGTH TO DRY AND WET ENAMEL WITH THREE SELF-ETCH ADHESIVES. JOURNAL OF DENTAL MEDICINE, 18(4 (45)), 31-41. SID. https://sid.ir/paper/25183/en

Vancouver: Copy

SHAFIEE F., MOTAMEDI M., ZARGHAM S.. COMPOSITE SHEAR BOND STRENGTH TO DRY AND WET ENAMEL WITH THREE SELF-ETCH ADHESIVES. JOURNAL OF DENTAL MEDICINE[Internet]. 2006;18(4 (45)):31-41. Available from: https://sid.ir/paper/25183/en

IEEE: Copy

F. SHAFIEE, M. MOTAMEDI, and S. ZARGHAM, “COMPOSITE SHEAR BOND STRENGTH TO DRY AND WET ENAMEL WITH THREE SELF-ETCH ADHESIVES,” JOURNAL OF DENTAL MEDICINE, vol. 18, no. 4 (45), pp. 31–41, 2006, [Online]. Available: https://sid.ir/paper/25183/en

Related Journal Papers