journal article·2016-10

Efficacy of accelerated aging methods to degrade the adhesive interface of dentin cavities bonded with etch-and-rinse adhesive systems

Letícia Virgínia de Freitas Chaves, Vanessa Suzana de Freitas Chaves, Mayane Dayse dos Santos Felix, Boniek Castillo Dutra Borges, Giovanna de Fátima Alves da Costa, Saulo Geraldeli

Publisher page

Abstract

This study evaluated the bond durability produced by etch-and-rinse (E&R) adhesive systems in response to traditional and accelerated aging methods. Tridimensional dentin cavities were prepared on 80 bovine incisors, which were bonded with a 3-step E&R (Adper Scotchbond Multipurpose Plus – MP) and a 2-step E&R (Adper Single Bond 2 (SB) adhesive systems, and restored with composite. The samples were stored in water for 24 h, and then subjected to each of the aging methods (n = 10): control group – only 24-h storage (not exposed to additional aging), 6- and 12-month water storage, and 10% NaOCl storage. The push-out bond strength test was performed in a universal testing machine. Failure modes were evaluated by scanning electron microscopy. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey tests (p < 0.05). Aging methods provided statistically similar bond strength for 3-step E&R adhesive system (p > 0.05). 10% NaOCl storage provides statistically similar bond strength values to 6- and 12-month water storage (p > 0.05), which were statistically lower than those provided by 24-h water storage (control group) (p < 0.05). Adhesive failures were more frequent. Aging methods provided different behaviors according to each adhesive system. The accelerated 10% NaOCl storage was effective to decrease bond strength only for 2-step E&R adhesive system.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Dental materials and restorations · Dental Research and COVID-19 · Dental Erosion and Treatment

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (21)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.dental.2005.02.00310.1016/j.dental.2005.02.003 ↗
2. 10.2174/13816121280330749110.2174/138161212803307491 ↗
3. 10.1021/bm501412410.1021/bm5014124 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.dental.2012.07.15810.1016/j.dental.2012.07.158 ↗
5. Cunha LG · Quintessence Int · 2008 · 39 · 243
6. 10.1080/0001635060079174410.1080/00016350600791744 ↗
7. 10.3109/00016357.2012.67136410.3109/00016357.2012.671364 ↗
8. 10.1080/01694243.2012.73619010.1080/01694243.2012.736190 ↗
9. 10.2341/12-246-L10.2341/12-246-L ↗
10. 10.3109/00016357.2012.75764910.3109/00016357.2012.757649 ↗
11. 10.1111/eos.2009.117.issue-510.1111/eos.2009.117.issue-5 ↗
12. 10.1177/002203451039179910.1177/0022034510391799 ↗
13. 10.1016/S0109-5641(02)00083-010.1016/S0109-5641(02)00083-0 ↗
14. 10.1177/0022034500079006060110.1177/00220345000790060601 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.dental.2006.06.03010.1016/j.dental.2006.06.030 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.dental.2010.10.02310.1016/j.dental.2010.10.023 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.04.00310.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.04.003 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.04.04410.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.04.044 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.dental.2010.10.01610.1016/j.dental.2010.10.016 ↗
20. 10.2341/11-248-L10.2341/11-248-L ↗
21. 10.1111/adj.2011.56.issue-s110.1111/adj.2011.56.issue-s1 ↗