Bond strength comparison of moisture-insensitive primers

Schaneveldt, Shane; Foley, Timothy F.

doi:10.1067/mod.2002.126594

Cited by 69 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The majority of previously published reports have focused on the influence of saliva on orthodontic adhesives [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] or fissure sealants, [19][20][21][22][23] and only a few reports have dealt with the effect of salivary contamination on resin restorations. 24 Controversial data have been reported regarding the effect of saliva contamination on the enamel bond strength of adhesives, because it depends not only on the individual adhesive used, but also on the adhesive in combination with the primer.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5 With regard to Transbond SEP (3M Unitek), some studies demonstrated no reduction in enamel bond strength for saliva contamination both before [8][9]16 and after priming. [6][7][8]16 However, contrary findings from other studies indicated significantly lower enamel bond strength in the case of salivary contamination after priming or both before and after priming.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of Saliva Contamination and Decontamination on Bovine Enamel Bond Strength of Four Self-etching Adhesives

Jiang¹,

Pan²,

Liu³

et al. 2010

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYObjective: This study evaluated the effect of saliva contamination on the bovine enamel microtensile bond strengths (µTBS) of four selfetching adhesives. Materials and Methods: The labial enamel surfaces of extracted non-carious bovine incisors were serially wet ground. The enamel surfaces were not contaminated (Group A), contaminated with saliva before/after priming (Groups B/C) or they were water-sprayed after salivary contamination occurred before/ after priming (Groups D/E). Four self-etching adhesives and the corresponding resin composites from the same manufacturer (Clearfil SE Bond + Clearfil AP-X, Kuraray Co; Xeno III + Ceram X, Densply; Frog + Ice, SDI; FL Bond II + Beautifil II, Shofu Inc) were applied onto the enamel surfaces. The µTBS tests were performed with a micro tester (BISCO, Inc). The enamel surface was analyzed with AFM (Atomic Force Microscopy) before/after salivary contamination occurred or after the saliva-contaminated enamel was water-sprayed. The data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA, factorial design ANOVA and post hoc Tukey's HSD multiple comparisons. Salivary contamination before and after priming could significantly reduce the enamel bond strength of self-etching adhesives. Proper isolation should be performed before and during application of the adhesives and placement of the resin composite. Thorough water-spraying could significantly improve the µTBS of saliva-contaminated enamel.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Saliva Contamination and Decontamination on Bovine Enamel Bond Strength of Four Self-etching Adhesives

Jiang¹,

Pan²,

Liu³

et al. 2010

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…4 Some studies found a greater decrease in bond strength when contamination occurred after acidetching; in such cases, re-etching of the enamel surface was necessary. 5,14,16 The contamination of the etched area by saliva or blood leads to the sealing of most of the porosity created by enamel acid-etching, which prevents the penetration of the adhesive material, resulting in insufficient resin tags in both number and length, and compromises bonding. 7 Other studies also found statistically significant differences when materials were compared before and after saliva contamination, with no differences regarding the material employed, 6,16 although some studies have suggested differently about whether Transbond™ MIP may be the best choice for moist environments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Adhesive fractures between the bracket and the composite resin are preferable because there is no enamel damage and the dentist can remove remnants without any risk of affecting the enamel. Damage to the enamel may occur in the case of cohesive fractures, which may be correlated 14 or not 6 with bond strength values. In the Transbond™ MIP group with no contamination, a higher number of specimens had enamel damage, although this was not the group with the highest mean bond strength value.…”

Section: E5mentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of saliva contamination on the shear bond strength of adhesives on enamel

Assad-Loss¹,

Tostes²,

Mucha³

2012

Dental Press J. Orthod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Influence of saliva contamination on the shear bond strength of adhesives on enamel original articleObjective: To evaluate shear bond strength of 3 adhesive systems (Single Bond, Transbond™ MIP and Transbond™ XT) applied on bovine enamel under saliva contamination condition. Method:One hundred and twenty enamel surfaces of bovine incisors were divided into 6 groups (n = 20) according to the adhesive system used (Transbond™ XT, Transbond™ MIP and Single Bond) with or without saliva contamination. For each adhesive system, there were two groups defined as no contamination group (NC): 37% H 3 PO 4 conditioning for 30 seconds and two layers of adhesive systems; saliva contamination group (SC): After the first adhesive layer application, the examined areas were contaminated with saliva. Samples were mounted appropriately for testing and stored in deionized water at 37 °C for 7 days. Samples were then submitted to shear bond strength trials at a speed of 0.5 mm/min. The Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) was evaluated under stereomicroscopy. Twoway analysis of variance and the Tukey test were used to compare mean values (α = 0.05).Results: Groups XT (NC) = 26.29 ± 7.23; MIP (NC) = 24.47 ± 7.52 and SB (NC) = 32.36 ± 4.14 XT (SC) = 19.59 ± 6.76; MIP (SC) = 18.08 ± 6.39 and SB (SC) = 18.18 ± 7.03 MPa. ARI 0 and 1 were the most prevalent scores in all study groups examined. Conclusion:Saliva contamination significantly decreased bond strength of the three adhesive systems examined (p <0.05). However, the comparison of groups with and without saliva contamination did not reveal any significant differences, and, therefore, the three systems may be considered equivalent.

show abstract

“…intechopen.com Advances in the next generation of bonding systems extends from etching enamel to dentine conditioning, treatment of smear layers and different application procedures of adhesive systems. (Schaneveldt & Foley, 2002) Fourth generation bonding systems consist of a 3-step application: etching, primers (which provide maximum adhesion by increasing monomer penetration to the etched enamel and hydrophilic dentine and increasing the wettability of tooth surfaces) and an adhesive resin agent. This system is also known as the total etch technique.…”

Section: Self-etching Applicationmentioning

confidence: 99%