The Effect of Different Adhesives and Setting Times on Bond Strength between Biodentine and Composite
Source abstract
Abstract
Background The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of 3 different adhesives with different functional monomers, on the shear bond strength (SBS) of Biodentine ® . Methods Acrylic blocks (n = 90) were prepared and a 2-mm height x 4-mm diameter hole was opened in each block. Every hole was completely restored with Biodentine ® . Before preparation of composite restorations over the Biodentine ® (2-mm height x 2-mm diameter), 3 different adhesives (Etch-37 (37%) w/BAC by Bisco & Prime Bond N&T, Clearfil S 3 Bond and Adper Prompt L-Pop) were applied. SBS was evaluated using a universal testing machine, and failure mode for each sample was recorded. The results were statistically analyzed using 2-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey test. Results When the megapascal values of all groups were compared, although there was no statistically significant difference in the different setting times (p>0.05), statistically significant differences were observed among all adhesive groups (p<0.05). Moreover, the highest SBS values were observed in the Clearfil S 3 Bond group. Conclusions Clinical performance of Biodentine ® may be affected by adhesive procedures and its setting time.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Endodontics and Root Canal Treatments · Dental materials and restorations · Surgical Sutures and Adhesives
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Zirve University, Gaziantep - Turkey
Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Zirve University, Gaziantep - Turkey
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Zirve University, Gaziantep - Turkey
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Kirikkale University, Kirikkale - Turkey
References (14)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.dental.2015.01.00410.1016/j.dental.2015.01.004 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.dental.2008.02.02010.1016/j.dental.2008.02.020 ↗
3. 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01995.x10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01995.x ↗
4. 10.1177/002203451246083310.1177/0022034512460833 ↗
5. 10.1590/1678-77572013066010.1590/1678-775720130660 ↗
6. Van Meerbeek B · Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent · 2003 · 28 · 215
7. 10.1016/S0109-5641(00)00087-710.1016/S0109-5641(00)00087-7 ↗
8. 10.1177/15440591040830060410.1177/154405910408300604 ↗
9. 10.1155/2013/62610310.1155/2013/626103 ↗
10. 10.1002/jemt.2234010.1002/jemt.22340 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.04.02510.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.04.025 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.dental.2013.12.01010.1016/j.dental.2013.12.010 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.jdent.2008.04.00910.1016/j.jdent.2008.04.009 ↗
14. Tosun G · Int J Paediatr Dent · 2008 · 18 · 6210.1111/j.1365-263X.2007.00856.x ↗