Journal of Conservative Dentistry
Home About us Editorial Board Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Login 
Users Online: 338
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 


 
Table of Contents   
ORIGINAL ARTICLE  
Year : 2013  |  Volume : 16  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 371-374
Comparative evaluation of microtensile bond strength of different solvent based one step and two step adhesive systems to dentin. An in-vitro study


1 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, College of Dental Sciences, Davangere, India
2 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, College of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Rau, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Submission06-Jan-2013
Date of Decision25-Mar-2013
Date of Acceptance26-Apr-2013
Date of Web Publication2-Jul-2013
 

   Abstract 

Aim and Objective: To compare and evaluate the micro tensile bond strength of different solvent based one step and two step adhesive systems to dentin.
Materials and Methods: Sixty recently extracted human mandibular premolars were subjected for the study and divided into 4 groups of fifteen each. The adhesive materials Single Bond, Prime and Bond XP, Clearfil S3 Bond and G-Bond were applied to flat dentin surfaces according to the manufacturer's instructions. After resin composite build up, teeth were sectioned to obtain beams with an approximate cross sectional area of 2 mm 2 and stressed to failure. Data were analysed statistically by ANOVA and student Neuman Keuls multiple comparison tests.
Results: The study demonstrated that Single Bond has better bond strength to dentin compared to the other adhesive systems.
Conclusion: Ethanol and water based two-step adhesive Single Bond exhibited significantly higher microtensile bond strength values to dentin among all the adhesive systems tested.

Keywords: Clearfil S3; G-Bond; microtensile bond strength; Prime and Bond XP; Single-Bond; tertiary butanol

How to cite this article:
Somasundaram P, Uthappa R, Shivgange V, Shivamurthy G B, Shivanna V. Comparative evaluation of microtensile bond strength of different solvent based one step and two step adhesive systems to dentin. An in-vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2013;16:371-4

How to cite this URL:
Somasundaram P, Uthappa R, Shivgange V, Shivamurthy G B, Shivanna V. Comparative evaluation of microtensile bond strength of different solvent based one step and two step adhesive systems to dentin. An in-vitro study. J Conserv Dent [serial online] 2013 [cited 2019 May 24];16:371-4. Available from: http://www.jcd.org.in/text.asp?2013/16/4/371/114350

   Introduction Top


The main challenge for a dental adhesive is the ability to bond effectively to two substrates of a different nature. Bonding to enamel is reliable and durable. In contrast, bonding to dentin has been difficult due to its variable nature and heterogenous structure. Hybridization with resin by monomer inter-diffusion has been identified as the basic bonding mechanism resulting in an intimate inter-locking of the cured resin with the dentin. [1] A wet bonding protocol is advocated for the development of a uniform hybrid layer and better bonding. [2]

After demineralization, collagen fibrils adhere to one another through intra-fibrillar hydrogen bonding. A solvent with a solubility parameter for hydrogen bonding approximating the amino acid moieties of the collagen fibrils has a better capacity for breaking up these intra-fibrillar hydrogen bonds and expanding the inter-fibrillar spaces to promote wetting and infiltration of the adhesive monomers. [3]

Application of acetone produces little solvation force, further affecting the infiltration of resin monomers while alcohol produces progressively higher solvation pressures that develop at increasing rates. Total-etch tertiary butanol based adhesive used in this investigation are thought to maintain the collagen fibrils in an expanded condition after the evaporation of solvents, thus improving infiltration of the monomers. [3]

This study was carried out to evaluate the micro tensile bond strength of the tertiary butanol based two-step adhesive system Prime and Bond XP and other contemporary adhesive systems to dentin. This article also discusses other variables affecting bonding such as the origin of dentin substrate, bonding site, area, and aged resin restorations.


   Materials and Methods Top


The sample comprised of 60, intact, non-carious, unrestored human mandibular premolars extracted for orthodontic reasons. Teeth were scraped of residue, kept in 2.6% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), rinsed under running water and stored in isotonic saline at room temperature until use.

Teeth were embedded in acrylic resin and the occlusal enamel removed perpendicular to their long axis to expose a flat, midcoronal dentin surface using a low speed, diamond disc. This surface was polished with silicon carbide paper and then rinsed under copious running water to produce the smear layer and immediately dried with moisture free air.

Teeth were randomly divided into four groups:

  • Group I: Comprised 15 bonded with two step bonding agent-Single Bond (3M)
  • Group II: Comprised 15 teeth bonded using two step bonding agent-Prime and Bond XP (Dentsply)
  • Group III: Comprised 15 teeth bonded with a single step bonding agent-Clearfil S3 Bond (Kuraray Medical Inc.)
  • Group IV: Comprised 15 teeth bonded using a single step bonding agent-G-bond (GC Corporation).
Bonding agents were applied according to the manufacturer's instructions and resin composite material built up incrementally to a height of 5 mm. Each increment was light cured for 40 s and finished with Sof-lex finishing and polishing discs and specimens stored in distilled water at room temperature.

Sectioning was started in the mesio-distal direction, then the tooth rotated at 90° and sectioned in the bucco-lingual direction to obtain beams with an approximate cross sectional area of 2 mm 2 . These were mounted to a custom acrylic jig and subjected to micro tensile bond strength testing in a Universal Testing Machine with a cross head speed 1 mm/min and stressed to failure. Results were evaluated statistically by ANOVA and student Neuman Keuls multiple comparison tests and analyzed.

Analysis of results

Microtensile bond strength values (Mpa) were calculated from the force at failure divided by cross-sectional area and multiplied by a constant. Results are expressed as mean ± SD One way ANOVA analysis was used for group wise comparison followed by the student Newman Keul's test. P value was calculated for statistical significance.

  • Group I: Microtensile bond strength of samples using a Single Bond ranged from maximum of 38.66 Mpa to a minimum of 26.48 Mpa with a mean value of 32.66 Mpa
  • Group II: Values for samples using Prime and Bond XP ranged from a 32.20 Mpa to 16.92 Mpa with a mean of 25.23 Mpa
  • Group III: Values of samples using the Clearfil S3 Bond ranged from 43.25 Mpa to 19.87 Mpa with a mean value of 32.07 Mpa
  • Group IV: Samples using G-bond exhibited values from 32.49 Mpa to 14.87 Mpa with a mean of 24.76 Mpa.
One-Way ANOVA test showed significant (P < 0.001) difference between the groups. In Group I, mean microtensile bond strength value was 32.66 MPa significantly higher than Group II and Group IV. In Group II, mean value was 25.23 MPa significantly higher than Group III. In Group III, mean value is 32.07 MPa significantly higher than Group IV. In Group IV, mean value is 24.76 MPa, which was lowest among all the groups.


   Inter-Group Comparisons Top


[Table 1] Mean microtensile bond strength of Group I was 32.66 MPa while that of Group II was 25.23 MPa and that of Group IV was 24.76 MPa showing a difference of −7.43 MPa and -7.90 MPa respectively, which was statistically significant (P < 0.05). When compared with Group III, which showed a mean of 32.07, difference was −0.59 MPa (P > 0.05), which was statistically not significant.
Table 1: Comparison with group I

Click here to view


[Table 2] Mean microtensile bond strength of Group II was 25.23 MPa while that of Group I was 32.66 MPa and Group III was 32.07 MPa showing a difference of −7.43 MPa and 6.84 MPa respectively, which was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Compared with Group II, which showed mean of 25.23 MPa, difference was −0.47 MPa (P > 0.05), which was not significant statistically.
Table 2: Comparison with group II

Click here to view


[Table 3] Mean microtensile bond strength of Group III was 32.07 MPa while that of Group I was 32.66 MPa and that of Group II was 25.23 MPa showing a difference of -0.59 MPa and −6.84 MPa respectively, which was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Compared with Group IV, which showed a mean of 24.76 MPa, difference was −7.31(P > 0.05) MPa, which was not significant statistically.
Table 3: Comparison with group III

Click here to view


[Table 4] Mean microtensile bond strength of Group IV was 24.76 MPa while that of Group I was 32.66 MPa and that of Group III was 32.07 MPa showing a difference of 7.90 MPa and 7.31 MPa respectively, which was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Compared with Group II, which showed a mean of 25.23 MPa, difference was 0.47 MPa (P > 0.05), which was not statistically significant.
Table 4: Comparison with group IV

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


Adhesive systems have constantly evolved in areas of (1) clinical simplicity (2) reduced application time and (3) minimized procedural errors. [4] In the interest of saving chair side time, research was directed at formulation of simpler, single step bonding systems combining the conditioning, priming, and adhesive functions into one single application. [4],[5] Despite these advantages, bond strength to enamel or dentin is an important indicator of an adhesive system's effectiveness since the bonding layer must support not only composite shrinkage stress, but also occlusal loads in stress-bearing areas, to avoid gap formation leading to micro leakage, secondary caries and post-operative sensitivity. [4]

A micro tensile bond strength methodology introduced by Sano in 1994 has become a popular research method, offering the opportunity to test more than one specimen from a single tooth. [6],[7]

Results showed that Group I exhibited higher bond strength to dentin than other bonding systems followed closely by Group III. Group II showed significantly lower bond strength and Group IV showed the least bond strength among all the adhesive systems compared.

Significant difference was seen in the bond strength of Group I and Groups II, and IV but, not with the values obtained for Group III in accordance with previous studies conducted. [8]

Since an ethanol-based adhesive invariably contains a small amount of water, this extrinsic water together with the increase in intrinsic moisture caused by removal of the smear layer could have resulted in rehydration of the partially collapsed collagen matrix during the adhesive application enhancing the bonding. [2]

Significant difference was seen in the microtensile bond strength values between Group III and Group II and Group IV, but not when compared with Group I. These results could be attributed to:

  1. The presence of 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihyrogen phosphate, which has chemical affinity for dental tissues and chelates favorably to calcium
  2. The Clearfil S3 Bond formulation includes a proprietary "Molecular Dispersion Technology", enabling a two phase liquid, hydrophilic/hydrophobic component homogenous state at the molecular level, resulting in reduction of water droplets at the adhesive interface and therefore, a superior bond. [9]
There was a significant difference in the microtensile bond strength values between Group II and Group I and Group III but not when compared with Group IV. Prime and bond XP contains tertiary-butanol as a solvent. Application of acetone produces little solvation force affecting the infiltration of resin monomers while alcohol produces progressively higher solvation pressures that develop at increasing rates, which helps maintain collagen fibrils in an expanded condition improving the infiltration of resin monomers.

Significant difference was noted in the bond strength values between Group IV and Group I and Group III but not when compared with Group II. Porosities or blisters may have occurred at the bonding interface giving low bond strength values. These blisters occur because most simplified all-in-one adhesives behave as semi-permeable membranes, which may be as a result of water accumulation either caused by an osmotic gradient or by monomer-solvent phase separation upon evaporation of the acetone. [10] Furthermore, the presence of acidic, hydrophilic and hydrophobic monomers into a single solution may compromise the function of each one of these components. [11]

When bonded to dentin, one-step self-etch adhesives still underperform as compared to conventional three-step adhesives. [12] Serious limitation of all-in-one adhesives are as follows: Incomplete polymerization and continued demineralization of the adjacent dentin structure in the tubules. Many factors influence the performance of an adhesive system. Each self-etching adhesive contains its specific functional monomer, which governs its PH and chemical interaction with the residual hydroxyapatite. [2],[12],[13]

Other parameters, which influence bond strength values as shown by related studies are as follows. Bond strength and area of the bonded surface are inversely proportional, due to a greater number of defects at the adhesive joint. Variations in bond strength have been seen between buccal and occlusal surface dentin with the former showing greater values due to a lesser number of dentinal tubules. [12]

It has been shown that there is no significant difference between human and bovine dentin if only the superficial layers are used. [12] Even during repair of existing restorations, the total-etch systems performed better with the surface preparation of the existing restoration when compared to single step adhesives. [14]

A durable interfacial adhesion between the tooth and biomaterial is essential for an ideal restoration. [15] Ideally, the life-time of a restoration would match that of its host. In reality, the continuing search for better restorative systems necessitates an awareness of the current materials that might give optimal clinical durability. [16]

This in vitro study needs further in vivo evaluation because the test was carried out using the extracted teeth without regarding the circumstances of the oral cavity under realistic physiological conditions, which may affect dentin bonding. Additional in vivo, in vitro tests and clinical trials are desirable in order to elucidate the effectiveness of these simplified bonding systems.


   Conclusion Top


Results suggest that ethanol and water based total-etch adhesive Single Bond performed superiorly. There was no significant difference between single bond and Clearfil S3 while the single step bonding agent G-bond exhibited comparatively low values. Tertiary butanol based Prime and Bond XP performed intermediately among the adhesives that were evaluated.

 
   References Top

1.Haller B. Recent developments in dentin bonding. Am J Dent 2000;13:44-50.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]    
2.Jayaprakash T, Srinivasan MR, Indira R. Evaluation of the effect of surface moisture on dentinal tensile bond strength to dentine adhesive: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2010;13:116-8.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
3.Toledano M, Osorio R, Albaladejo A, Aguilera FS, Tay FR, Ferrari M. Effect of cyclic loading on the microtensile bond strengths of total-etch and self-etch adhesives. Oper Dent 2006;31:25-32.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]    
4.Soares FZ, Rocha Rde O, Raggio DP, Sadek FT, Cardoso PE. Microtensile bond strength of different adhesive systems to primary and permanent dentin. Pediatr Dent 2005;27:457-62.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]    
5.Inoue S, Vargas MA, Abe Y, Yoshida Y, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G, et al. Microtensile bond strength of eleven contemporary adhesives to dentin. J Adhes Dent 2001;3:237-45.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]    
6.Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, et al. Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: Current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 2003;28:215-35.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.Pilecki P, Stone DG, Sherriff M, Watson TF. Microtensile bond strengths to enamel of self-etching and one bottle adhesive systems. J Oral Rehabil 2005;32:531-40.  Back to cited text no. 7
[PUBMED]    
8.Nunes MF, Swift EJ, Perdigão J. Effects of adhesive composition on microtensile bond strength to human dentin. Am J Dent 2001;14:340-3.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.Amaral CM, Hara AT, Pimenta LA, Rodrigues AL Jr. Microleakage of hydrophilic adhesive systems in Class V composite restorations. Am J Dent 2001;14:31-3.  Back to cited text no. 9
[PUBMED]    
10.Perdigão J, Gomes G, Gondo R, Fundingsland JW. In vitro bonding performance of all-in-one adhesives. Part I - Microtensile bond strengths. J Adhes Dent 2006;8:367-73.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.Perdigão J, Lopes MM, Gomes G. In vitro bonding performance of self-etch adhesives: II - Ultramorphological evaluation. Oper Dent 2008;33:534-49.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.Vanajasan PP, Dhakshinamoorthy M, Rao CS. Factors affecting the bond strength of self-etch adhesives: A meta-analysis of literature. J Conserv Dent 2011;14:62-7.  Back to cited text no. 12
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
13.Osorio R, Pisani-Proenca J, Erhardt MC, Osorio E, Aguilera FS, Tay FR, et al. Resistance of ten contemporary adhesives to resin-dentine bond degradation. J Dent 2008;36:163-9.  Back to cited text no. 13
[PUBMED]    
14.Acharya GS, Manjunath M. The effect of surface treatments and bonding regimens on microtensile bond strengths of repaired composite: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2012;15:383-7.  Back to cited text no. 14
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
15.Soares CJ, Castro CG, Santos Filho PC, da Mota AS. Effect of previous treatments on bond strength of two self-etching adhesive systems to dental substrate. J Adhes Dent 2007;9:291-6.  Back to cited text no. 15
[PUBMED]    
16.Söderholm KJ, Guelmann M, Bimstein E. Shear bond strength of one 4 th and two 7 th generation bonding agents when used by operators with different bonding experience. J Adhes Dent 2005;7:57-64.  Back to cited text no. 16
    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Pavithra Somasundaram
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, College of Dental Sciences, Davangere - 577 004, Karnataka
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.114350

Rights and Permissions



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top
 
 
 
  Search
 
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  
 


    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
    Inter-Group Comp...
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1358    
    Printed30    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded155    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal