Evaluating shear bond strength efficacy of seventh and eighth generation bonding agents (an in vitro study)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15218/edj.2021.18Keywords:
Shear bond strength, Self etching, 7th and 8th generation bonding agentAbstract
Background and Objectives: The most important purpose of dental adhesives is to offer retention to composite fillings or composite cements. The most frequently applied laboratory parameter to evaluate the effectiveness of dentin bonding agents is shear bond strength. The aim of this study is to introduce the 8th generation of bonding to our country's dentists and investigating the manufacturer's claim in this research, and compare the shear bond strength of two types of systems.
Material and Methods: Thirty freshly extracted maxillary premolars were collected. After preparation, the samples were randomly divided into two groups of fifteen and each group was treated with a different bonding agent. In group A, 15 specimens were treated by Gluma Bond Universal (Kulzer, Hanau, Germany). In group B, 15 specimens were treated by LuxaBond Universal (DMG, Hamburg, Germany). O‐Light Curing Light unit (Woodpecker, Guilin, China) used for polymerization of both bonding systems. Composite (Beautifil Injectable X, Shofu Inc, Kyoto, Japan) cylinders were afterwards placed on the bonded surfaces using an elastic mold and were light‐cured. To measure the shear bond strength of the specimens a universal material tester was used. Descriptive Statistics and One Sample test was conducted for statistical analysis.
Results: The highest strength was seen in the 8th generation bonding agent (LuxaBond Universal (DMG, Hamburg, Germany). A highly significant difference (p < 0.000) was found between the seventh and eighth‐generation bonding groups.
Conclusion: The eighth‐generation bonding agent showed higher mean bond strength than the seventh generation bonding agent.
References
Dhawan R, Indira R, Dhawan S. A comparative evaluation of tensile bond strength and scanning electron microscopic study of three generation bonding agents. An in‐vitro study. J Conserv Dent. 2005; 8: 8‐18.
Opdam NJ, Loomans BA, Roeters FJ, Bronkhorst EM. Five‐year clinical performance of posterior resin composite restorations placed by dental students. J Dent 2004;32(5):379–83.
Ravikumar N, Shankar P, Indira R. Shear Bond Strength of two dentin Bonding Agents with two desensitizers. J Conserv Dent 2011;14(3):247– 251. DOI: 10.4103/0972‐0707.85802.
Chauhan U, Dewan R, Goyal NG. Comparative Evaluation of Bond Strength of Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Generations of Dentin Bonding Agents: An In Vitro Study. Journal of Operative Dentistry & Endodontics. 2020 Dec; 5(2):69–73.
Perdigão J. New developments in dental adhesion. Dent Clin N Am 2007;51(2):333–357. viii.
Nakabayashi N, Kojima K, Masuhara E. The promotion of adhe‐ sion by the infiltration of monomers into tooth substrates. J Biomed Mater Res 1982;16(3):265–273.
Hanabusa M, Mine A, Kuboki T, Momoi Y, Van Ende A, Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J. Bonding effectiveness of a new ’multi‐ mode’ adhesive to enamel and dentine. J Dent 2012;40(6): 475–484.
Van Meerbeek B, Frankenberger R. Editorial: What’s next after “universal” adhesives, “bioactive” adhesives? J Adhes Dent 2017; 19(6):459–460.
Matos AB, Trevelin LT, Silva B, Francisconi‐Dos‐Rios LF, Siriani LK, Cardoso MV. Bonding efficiency and durability: Current possibilities. Braz Oral Res 2017;31(suppl 1):e57.
Shafigh, E., Mahdavi, M. R., Nasiri, R. Evaluation and Comparison of Micro Shear of 5th, 7th and 8th Generation Bonding Agents in Dentin (In Vitro Study). Arch Pharma Pract 2020;11(S1):145‐50.
Craig RG. Bonding of dental substrates. Craig Restorative dental materials. 10th ed., Mosby Inc; 2002.
Standardization IOF. ISO/Technical specifications 11405: Dentistry ‐ Testing of adhesion to tooth structurel 2015
Chauhan U, Dewan R, Goyal NG. Comparative Evaluation of Bond Strength of Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Generations of Dentin Bonding Agents: An In Vitro Study. J Oper Dent Endod 2020;5(2):69–73.
Paul J, Chakravarthy Y, Kumar S, Rahna R. Comparative evaluation of the bonding efficacy of sixth, seventh and eighth generation bonding agents: an in vitro study. International research journal of pharmacy. 2013 Oct 13;2(9):143–7.
Reifeis P, Cochran M, Moore B. An in vitro shear bond strength study of enamel/dentin bonding systems on enamel. Operative dentistry. 1995;20:174‐.
Sturdevant’s. Art and science of operative dentistry. Fundamental Concept of Enamel and Dentin Adhesion. 6th ed., Elsevier; 2011. 179– 202.
De Munck J, Van Meerbeek B, Vargas M, et al. One day bonding effectiveness of new self‐etch adhesives to bur‐cut enamel and dentin. Oper Dent 2005;30:39–49.
Jorge Perdigao. New developments in dental adhesion. Dent Clin North Am 2007; 51(2): 333‐57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2007.01.001 PMid:17532916
Shirai K, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Lambrechts P, Suzuki K et al. Effect of cavity configuration and aging on the bonding effectiveness of six adhesives to dentin. Dent Mater 2005; 21(2): 110‐24.
Carvalho RM, Mendonca JS, Santiago SL, Silveira RR, Garcia FC, Tay FR, et al. Effects of HEMA/solvent combinations on bond strength to dentin. J Dent Res 2003;82(8):597–601.
Frankenberger R, Kramer N, Petschelt A. Technique sensitivity of dentin bonding: Effect of application mistakes on bond strength and marginal adaptation. Oper Dent 2000;25:324‐30.
Maciel KT, Carvalho RM, Ringle RD, Preston CD, Russell CM, Pashley DH. The effects of acetone, ethanol, HEMA, and air on the stiffness of human decalcified dentin matrix. J Dent Res 1996;75:1851‐58.
Perdigão J, Frankenberger R. Effect of solvent and rewetting time on dentin adhesion. Quintessence Int 2001;32:385‐90.
Pereira GDS, Paulillo LA, De Goes MF, Dias CT. How wet should dentin be? Comparison of methods to remove excess water during moist bonding. J Adhes Dent 2001;3:257‐60.
Ritter AV, Heymann HO, Swift EJ Jr, Perdigão J, Rosa BT. Effects of different re‐wetting techniques on dentin shear bond strengths. J Esthet Dent 2000;12:85‐96.
Mjör IA, SmithMR, FerrariM,Mannocci F (2001) The structure of dentine in the apical region of human teeth. Int Endod J 34(5):346–353. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365‐2591.2001.00393.x
Pashley DH, Tay FR, Carvalho RM, Rueggeberg FA, Agee KA, Carrilho M, Donnelly A, Garcia‐Godoy F (2007) Fromdry bonding to water‐wet bonding to ethanol‐wet bonding. A review of the interactions between dentin matrix and solvated resins using amacromodel of the hybrid layer. Am J Dent 20(1):7–20
Gruber YL, Bakaus TE, Gomes OMM, Reis A, Gomes GM(2017) Effect of Dentin Moisture and Application Mode of Universal Adhesives on the Adhesion of Glass Fiber Posts to Root Canal. J Adhes Dent 19(5):385–393. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a38998
Kosan E, Prates‐Soares A, Blunck U, Neumann K, Bitter K. Root canal pre‐treatment and adhesive system affect bond strength durability of fiber posts ex vivo. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2021;
Feitosa VP, Leme AA, Sauro S, Correr‐Sobrinho L, Watson TF, Sinhoreti MA, & Correr AB (2012) Hydrolytic degradation of the resin‐dentine interface induced by the simulated pulpal pressure, direct and indirect water ageing Journal of Dentistry 40(12) 1134‐43.
Reis A, Albuquerque M, Pegoraro M, Mattei G, Bauer JR, Grande RH, Klein‐Junior CA, Baumhardt‐Neto R, & Loguercio AD (2008) Can the durability of one‐step self‐etch adhesives be improved by double application or by an extra layer of hydrophobic resin? Journal of Dentistry 36 (5) 309‐15.
Loguercio AD, & Reis A (2008) Application of a dental adhesive using the self‐etch and etch‐and‐rinse approaches: an 18‐month clinical evaluation Journal of the American Dental Association 139(1) 53‐61.
Reis A, Leite TM, Matte K, Michels R, Amaral RC, Geraldeli S, & Loguercio AD (2009) Improving clinical retention of one‐step self‐etching adhesive systems with an additional hydrophobic adhesive layer Journal of the American Dental Association 140(7) 877‐85.
Breschi L, Mazzoni A, Ruggeri A, Cadenaro M, Di Lenarda R, & De Stefano Dorigo E (2008) Dental adhesion review: aging and stability of the bonded interface Dental Materials 24(1) 90‐101.
Cadenaro M, Antoniolli F, Sauro S, Tay FR, Di Lenarda R, Prati C, Biasotto M, Contardo L, & Breschi L (2005) Degree of conversion and permeability of dental adhe‐ sives European Journal of Oral Sciences 113(6) 525‐30.
Reis A, de Carvalho Cardoso P, Vieira LC, Baratieri LN, Grande RH, & Loguercio AD (2008) Effect of prolonged application times on the durability of resin‐dentin bonds Dental Materials 24(5) 639‐44.
Arrais CA, Giannini M, Nakajima M, Tagami J (2004) Effects of additional and extended acid etching on bonding to caries‐affected dentine. Eur J Oral Sci 112:458–64.
Kerby RE, Knobloch LA, Clelland N, et al. Microtensile bond strengths of one‐step and self‐etching adhesive systems. Oper Dent 2005;30(2):195–200.
Joseph P, Yadav C, Satheesh K, et al. Comparative evaluation of the bonding efficacy of sixth, seventh and eight generation bonding agents: an in vitro study. Int Res J Pharm 2013;4(9):143–47.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Hidayat Ababakr Khudhur, Diyar Khalid Bakr, Sazan Sherdl Saleem, Sohela Fakher Mahdi Fakher Mahdi (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The copyright on any article published in Erbil Dental Journal is retained by the author(s) in agreement with the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial ShareAlike License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).
