Comparative evaluation of bond strength of self-adhering flowable composites to the dentin prepared with different burs: An in vitro study

Abstract

Aim:The aim of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of self-adhering flowable composites on the dentinal surface prepared with carbide and diamond burs.Materials and Methods:A total of 64 extracted mandibular molars were mounted on acrylic resin blocks, and the coronal part of the dentin was exposed and polished. Then, they were divided into Group 1 and Group 2 for carbide and diamond bur preparation, respectively. Two teeth in each group were evaluated under scanning electron microscope, ×500, to view the surface changes following the bur preparation. The remaining teeth were subdivided into Groups A, B, and C to be restored with Constic, Dyad™-flow, and Tetric N Flow composites, respectively. Then, the specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 h, and then subjected to universal testing machine to evaluate the SBS and viewed under light stereomicroscope to evaluate the type of failure.Statistical Analysis:SPSS version 22 (IBM Corp) for Windows was used for statistical analysis. The values were subjected to ANOVA followed by Bonferroni post hoc analysis. The values between the groups were analyzed using Student's unpaired t-test.Results:Statistically significant differences in the SBS values were seen between Groups A and C (P < 0.001) and Groups B and C (P < 0.001). Statistically significant differences were seen in SBS values of Dyad-flow (Group B) (P < 0.004) and Tetric N flow (P < 0.007) for surfaces prepared with carbide and diamond burs.Conclusion:It was concluded that the SBS of Tetric-N Flow was higher than that of the experimental groups of Constic and Dyad-flow. Dentinal surface preparation with carbide bur resulted in higher SBS for Tetric N Flow and Dyad-flow but not for Constic.

Bond strength of self-adhesive flowable resin composites to tooth structure

“…Table 1 presents the main methodological aspects from included studies. In total, 23 in vitro studies met inclusion criteria (published between 2012 and 2019) 8,9,16,[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] and most of them (n=18) used permanent teeth (ranging from 30 to 160) for the bonding tests. The bond strength of SAFRCs to primary teeth was evaluated in six studies, published between 2013 and 2019 16,22,26,30,34,38 .…”

“…The bond strength of SAFRCs to primary teeth was evaluated in six studies, published between 2013 and 2019 16,22,26,30,34,38 . Vertise® Flow (Kerr Corp, Orange, CA, USA) (n=22) followed by Fusio™ Liquid Dentin (Pentron Clinical, Orange, CA, USA) (n=5) were the most tested SAFRCs, while Constic® was evaluated only in three studies 29,35,37 .…”

An In-Vitro Analysis of Microleakage of Self-Adhesive Fissure Sealant vs. Conventional and GIC Fissure Sealants

“…Etching of the enamel, proposed in etch and rinse systems, increases the surface energy of the enamel surface by removing the smear layer. This step is not necessary when SAC is applied and it does not have an influence on marginal adaptation [8]. This fact is very important in everyday clinical practice in paediatric dentistry.…”

“…There are a few investigations on the adhesive properties of these simplified self-adhesive fissure sealant composite materials [7,8,9]. Some studies reported that SAC achieved lower bond strength compared to the traditional flowable composites that were used with bonding agents [8]. According to the manufacturer, Constic, a self-etching and self-adhesive flowable composite, combines an etching gel, bonding agent and flowable composite.…”

Effect of mechanical alteration of enamel surface on shear bond strength of different bonding techniques

“…[ 4 ] However, various authors have reported relatively low bond strength values of SAC to dental hard tissues, thus necessitating an alteration in the bonding approach. [ 5 6 7 ] Restorative demands frequently present with clinical situations requiring bonding to intact, altered, or prepared enamel surfaces, which might bond differently with adhesive resins. Considering the limited information on bonding of SAC to enamel available in literature, this study was undertaken to evaluate the effect of mechanical alteration of enamel surface on shear bond strength of self-adhering composites utilizing different adhesive modalities.…”