Microtensile bond strength test and failure analysis to assess bonding characteristics of different adhesion approaches to ground versus unground enamel

Author(s)

Vinicius Di Hipólito ^[1] ; Roberta Caroline Bruschi Alonso ^[2] ; Marcela Rocha de Oliveira Carrilho ^[3] ; Camillo Anauate Netto ^[4] ; Mário Alexandre Coelho Sinhoreti ^[5] ; Mario Fernando de Goes ^[6]

Affiliation

^[1] Bandeirante University of São Paulo. Dental School - Brasil

^[2] Bandeirante University of São Paulo. Dental School - Brasil

^[3] Bandeirante University of São Paulo. Dental School - Brasil

^[4] Bandeirante University of São Paulo. Dental School - Brasil

^[5] University of Campinas. Piracicaba Dental School. Department of Restorative Dentistry - Brasil

^[6] University of Campinas. Piracicaba Dental School. Department of Restorative Dentistry - Brasil

• Document type: Journal article
• Source: Brazilian Dental Journal; v. 22, n. 2, p. 122-128, 2011-00-00.

Abstract

This study evaluated the bonding characteristics to ground and unground enamel obtained with different strategies. For this purpose, 24 sound third-molars were bisected mesiodistally to obtain tooth halves. A flat enamel area was delimited in the tooth sections, which were randomly distributed into 8 groups (n=6), according to the enamel condition (ground and unground) and adhesive system (Adper Single Bond 2 - SB2; Adper Prompt L-Pop - PLP; Adper Prompt - AD; Clearfil SE Bond - SE). Each system was applied according manufacturers' instructions and a 6-mm-high resin composite "crown" was incrementally built up on bonded surfaces. Hourglass-shaped specimens with 0.8 mm² cross-section were produced. Microtensile bond strength (μTBS) was recorded and the failure patterns were classified. Results were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α=0.05). There were no statistically significant differences among the μTBS values of SB2, PLP and AD (p>0.05). SE values were significantly lower (p0.05). There was prevalence of cohesive failure within enamel, adhesive system and resin composite for SB2. The self-etch systems produced higher incidence of cohesive failures in the adhesive system. Enamel condition did not determine significant differences on bonding characteristics for the same bonding system. In conclusion, the bonding systems evaluated in this study resulted in specific μTBS and failure patterns due to the particular interaction with enamel. (AU)