SMILE – Repository of the Faculty of Dental Medicine
University of Belgrade - Faculty of Dental Medicine
    • English
    • Српски
    • Српски (Serbia)
  • English 
    • English
    • Serbian (Cyrillic)
    • Serbian (Latin)
  • Login
View Item 
  •   SMILE
  • Stomatološki fakultet
  • Radovi istraživača
  • View Item
  •   SMILE
  • Stomatološki fakultet
  • Radovi istraživača
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Microtensile bond strength of universal adhesives to flat versus Class I cavity dentin with pulpal pressure simulation

Authorized Users Only
2018
Authors
Ležaja-Zebić, Maja
Dželetović, Bojan
Miletić, Vesna
Article (Published version)
Metadata
Show full item record
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this study was to test long-term microtensile bond strength (mu TBS) of 2 universal adhesives applied to dentin following "total-etch" (TE) or "self-etch" (SE) protocols and aged by direct or indirect water exposure using simulated pulpal pressure. Materials and methods: Single Bond Universal (SBU, 3M ESPE) or Ipera Bond (IP, Itena) were applied to mid-coronal dentin ("flat dentin") or Class I cavity ("cavity dentin") following TE or SE protocols in 112 extracted human third molars. Sixteen groups (n=7 per group) were prepared, 8 groups for mu TBS measurements after 24 hours, and further 8 groups for measurements after 6 months storage. "Cavity dentin" groups were subjected to simulated hydrostatic pulpal pressure of 15 cm H2O using a custom-made device before cutting 1 x 1 mm sticks while "flat dentin" groups were cut into sticks and directly exposed to deionized water. Results: Generally, the TE protocol resulted in highest mu TBS values on flat dentin initiall...y for both adhesives (general linear model, P lt .05). Long-term storage resulted in significantly lower mu TBS values for the TE protocol (P lt .05) while the SE protocol showed comparable values after 6 months (P>.05). "Cavity dentin" with simulated pulpal pressure resulted in lower mu TBS than "flat dentin" (P lt .05). For both adhesives, mu TBS was in the range of 19-42 MPa initially and 16-36 MPa after 6 months storage. Conclusions: mu TBS to dentin of universal adhesives is more stable in the long term following the SE than TE protocol. Simulated pulpal pressure and cavity-type sample preparation may be recommended for mu TBS testing as a more clinically relevant strategy.

Keywords:
cavity dentin / flat dentin / microtensile bond strength / simulated pulpal pressure / universal adhesives
Source:
Journal of Esthetic & Restorative Dentistry, 2018, 30, 3, 240-248
Publisher:
  • Wiley, Hoboken
Funding / projects:
  • Development and Application of Methods and Materials for Monitoring New Organic Contaminants, Toxic Compounds and Heavy Metals (RS-172007)
  • Pain Control and Molecular Mechanisms as Factors for Tissue Regeneration in Dentistry in Healthy and Diabetic Patients (RS-175021)

DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12363

ISSN: 1496-4155

PubMed: 29377533

WoS: 000436802000008

Scopus: 2-s2.0-85041057174
[ Google Scholar ]
6
4
URI
https://smile.stomf.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/2299
Collections
  • Radovi istraživača
Institution/Community
Stomatološki fakultet
TY  - JOUR
AU  - Ležaja-Zebić, Maja
AU  - Dželetović, Bojan
AU  - Miletić, Vesna
PY  - 2018
UR  - https://smile.stomf.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/2299
AB  - Objectives: The aim of this study was to test long-term microtensile bond strength (mu TBS) of 2 universal adhesives applied to dentin following "total-etch" (TE) or "self-etch" (SE) protocols and aged by direct or indirect water exposure using simulated pulpal pressure. Materials and methods: Single Bond Universal (SBU, 3M ESPE) or Ipera Bond (IP, Itena) were applied to mid-coronal dentin ("flat dentin") or Class I cavity ("cavity dentin") following TE or SE protocols in 112 extracted human third molars. Sixteen groups (n=7 per group) were prepared, 8 groups for mu TBS measurements after 24 hours, and further 8 groups for measurements after 6 months storage. "Cavity dentin" groups were subjected to simulated hydrostatic pulpal pressure of 15 cm H2O using a custom-made device before cutting 1 x 1 mm sticks while "flat dentin" groups were cut into sticks and directly exposed to deionized water. Results: Generally, the TE protocol resulted in highest mu TBS values on flat dentin initially for both adhesives (general linear model, P lt .05). Long-term storage resulted in significantly lower mu TBS values for the TE protocol (P lt .05) while the SE protocol showed comparable values after 6 months (P>.05). "Cavity dentin" with simulated pulpal pressure resulted in lower mu TBS than "flat dentin" (P lt .05). For both adhesives, mu TBS was in the range of 19-42 MPa initially and 16-36 MPa after 6 months storage. Conclusions: mu TBS to dentin of universal adhesives is more stable in the long term following the SE than TE protocol. Simulated pulpal pressure and cavity-type sample preparation may be recommended for mu TBS testing as a more clinically relevant strategy.
PB  - Wiley, Hoboken
T2  - Journal of Esthetic & Restorative Dentistry
T1  - Microtensile bond strength of universal adhesives to flat versus Class I cavity dentin with pulpal pressure simulation
VL  - 30
IS  - 3
SP  - 240
EP  - 248
DO  - 10.1111/jerd.12363
ER  - 
@article{
author = "Ležaja-Zebić, Maja and Dželetović, Bojan and Miletić, Vesna",
year = "2018",
abstract = "Objectives: The aim of this study was to test long-term microtensile bond strength (mu TBS) of 2 universal adhesives applied to dentin following "total-etch" (TE) or "self-etch" (SE) protocols and aged by direct or indirect water exposure using simulated pulpal pressure. Materials and methods: Single Bond Universal (SBU, 3M ESPE) or Ipera Bond (IP, Itena) were applied to mid-coronal dentin ("flat dentin") or Class I cavity ("cavity dentin") following TE or SE protocols in 112 extracted human third molars. Sixteen groups (n=7 per group) were prepared, 8 groups for mu TBS measurements after 24 hours, and further 8 groups for measurements after 6 months storage. "Cavity dentin" groups were subjected to simulated hydrostatic pulpal pressure of 15 cm H2O using a custom-made device before cutting 1 x 1 mm sticks while "flat dentin" groups were cut into sticks and directly exposed to deionized water. Results: Generally, the TE protocol resulted in highest mu TBS values on flat dentin initially for both adhesives (general linear model, P lt .05). Long-term storage resulted in significantly lower mu TBS values for the TE protocol (P lt .05) while the SE protocol showed comparable values after 6 months (P>.05). "Cavity dentin" with simulated pulpal pressure resulted in lower mu TBS than "flat dentin" (P lt .05). For both adhesives, mu TBS was in the range of 19-42 MPa initially and 16-36 MPa after 6 months storage. Conclusions: mu TBS to dentin of universal adhesives is more stable in the long term following the SE than TE protocol. Simulated pulpal pressure and cavity-type sample preparation may be recommended for mu TBS testing as a more clinically relevant strategy.",
publisher = "Wiley, Hoboken",
journal = "Journal of Esthetic & Restorative Dentistry",
title = "Microtensile bond strength of universal adhesives to flat versus Class I cavity dentin with pulpal pressure simulation",
volume = "30",
number = "3",
pages = "240-248",
doi = "10.1111/jerd.12363"
}
Ležaja-Zebić, M., Dželetović, B.,& Miletić, V.. (2018). Microtensile bond strength of universal adhesives to flat versus Class I cavity dentin with pulpal pressure simulation. in Journal of Esthetic & Restorative Dentistry
Wiley, Hoboken., 30(3), 240-248.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12363
Ležaja-Zebić M, Dželetović B, Miletić V. Microtensile bond strength of universal adhesives to flat versus Class I cavity dentin with pulpal pressure simulation. in Journal of Esthetic & Restorative Dentistry. 2018;30(3):240-248.
doi:10.1111/jerd.12363 .
Ležaja-Zebić, Maja, Dželetović, Bojan, Miletić, Vesna, "Microtensile bond strength of universal adhesives to flat versus Class I cavity dentin with pulpal pressure simulation" in Journal of Esthetic & Restorative Dentistry, 30, no. 3 (2018):240-248,
https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12363 . .

DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
About Smile – School of dental Medicine dIgitaL archivE | Send Feedback

OpenAIRERCUB
 

 

All of DSpaceCommunitiesAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis institutionAuthorsTitlesSubjects

Statistics

View Usage Statistics

DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
About Smile – School of dental Medicine dIgitaL archivE | Send Feedback

OpenAIRERCUB