Improvement of Total Etching Dentin Bonding with Subpressure.

This study aimed to investigate the effects of subpressure on the bond properties of total-etching adhesive to dentin. Thirty-six caries-free premolars were sectioned parallel to the occlusal plane and randomly divided into four groups (n = 9): a control group (C, no treatment) and three subpressure groups, which were treated under 0.8, 0.6 or 0.4 bar after applying adhesives, named S8, S6 and S4, respectively. Afterward, resin was bonded to the dentin surface, and 27 beams (1.0 mm × 1.0 mm) of each group were sectioned. One was selected to observe the bonding interface from each group by SEM. Each group was divided into two subgroups (n = 13): 24 hours of water storage (I) and 10,000 thermocycling (A). The microtensile bond strength (µTBS), failure modes and nanoleakage expression were evaluated. SEM results showed that the subpressure groups had longer and denser resin tags. The µTBS of the subpressure groups was higher than that of the control group (p < 0.05). The subpressure groups were dominated by mixed failure, whereas main interfacial failure appeared in group C. The subpressure groups showed less silver deposition than the control group (p < 0.05). The subpressure technique may remarkably improve bonding strength and decrease nanoleakage on total-etching bonding.

The effect of subpressure on the bond strength of resin to zirconia ceramic.

OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to investigate the effect of subpressure on the bond strength of resin to zirconia ceramic. The subpressure would create a pressure gradient which could clean out the bubbles in the adhesives or bonding interface. METHODS: Twenty-eight pre-sintered zirconia discs were fabricated. Half of them were polished (group P, n = 14), and the rest were sandblasted (group S, n = 14). After sintered,the surface roughness of the zirconia discs was measured. Then, they were randomly divided into two subgroups (n = 7). The groups were named as follows: PC: P + no additional treatments; PP: P + 0.04 MPa after application of adhesives; SC: S + no additional treatments; and SP: S + 0.04 MPa after application of adhesives. Resin columns were bonded to the zirconia specimens to determine shear bond strength (SBS). The bonding interfaces were observed and the fracture modes were evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed on all data. RESULTS: The surface roughness of group S was significantly higher than that of group P (P<0.05). The SBS values were PC = 13.48 ± 0.7 MPa, PP = 15.22 ± 0.8 MPa, SC = 17.23 ± 0.7 MPa and SP = 21.68 ± 1.4 MPa. There were significant differences among the groups (P<0.05). Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) results showed that the adhesives of group SP and PP were closer and denser to the zirconia ceramic than that of group PC and SC. The proportion of the mixed fracture mode significantly increased after adding subpressure (P< 0.05). CONCLUSION: Subpressure can improve the shear bond strength of resin to zirconia ceramics and increase micro-infiltration between the adhesives and the zirconia ceramics, especially on the rough surfaces.

[Comparison of bonding properties of five adhesives in primary dentin].

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the microtensile bond strength (µTBS) of five dentin adhesives and their respective fracture modes. METHODS: The flat dentine surfaces of 75 primary teeth were randomly divided into five groups,which was treated with FL-BondII(group A), Clearfil Protect Bond(group B), Clearfil SE Bond(group C), Adper(TM) Easy One(group D), and Single Bond 2(group E) respectively. The µTBS was determined with microtensile tester and the fracture mode was observed by scanning electron microscope(SEM). RESULTS: The mean µTBS for group A,B,C,D and E was (28.3 ± 2.2), (32.4 ± 2.5), (38.3 ± 2.8), (32.9 ± 3.4) and (23.2 ± 1.9) MPa respectively. There was significant difference between group C and group A,E (P < 0.01), and no significant difference between group C and group B,D. There was no significant difference between group A and group E (P > 0.05). The SEM indicated that there was no significant difference in the fracture mode. CONCLUSIONS: The bonding property of Clearfil Protect Bond is equivalent to Clearfil SE Bond and Adper(TM) Easy One, superior to Single Bond 2 and more suitable for primary dentin bonding .