Cargando…

Comparative evaluation of the bonding efficacy of sixth and seventh generation bonding agents: An In-Vitro study

AIMS: To compare the shear bond strength of sixth generation and seventh generation bonding agents to dentin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty human maxillary premolars were reduced to expose flat surface of dentin and divided into four equal groups, which were bonded using following bonding agents: Si...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nair, Manuja, Paul, Joseph, Kumar, Satheesh, Chakravarthy, Yadav, Krishna, Vel, Shivaprasad
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3915380/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24554856
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.124119
_version_ 1782302574002569216
author Nair, Manuja
Paul, Joseph
Kumar, Satheesh
Chakravarthy, Yadav
Krishna, Vel
Shivaprasad,
author_facet Nair, Manuja
Paul, Joseph
Kumar, Satheesh
Chakravarthy, Yadav
Krishna, Vel
Shivaprasad,
author_sort Nair, Manuja
collection PubMed
description AIMS: To compare the shear bond strength of sixth generation and seventh generation bonding agents to dentin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty human maxillary premolars were reduced to expose flat surface of dentin and divided into four equal groups, which were bonded using following bonding agents: Sixth generation bonding agents, Adper SE Plus and Xeno III and Seventh generation bonding agents, Adper Easy One and Xeno V. Composite cylinders were then built using a plastic mould on these prepared dentinal surfaces. Samples were stored in distilled water for 24 hours and tested for shear bond strength with universal testing machine. Shear force was applied perpendicular to the long axis of composite cylinder at adhesive-tooth interface until debonding occurred. The data so obtained were tabulated and analyzed statistically using independent-samples t test and analysis of variance (ANOVA) test RESULTS: The seventh generation adhesives showed significantly higher shear bond strength to dentin compared to sixth generation adhesives (P < 0.01). The highest value of shear bond strength was obtained from Adper Easy One system, while Adper SE Plus gave the lowest shear bond strength values. CONCLUSIONS: Seventh generation adhesives are more advantageous than sixth generation adhesives in dentin bonding as it requires less time, fewer steps, and better bond strength.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3915380
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-39153802014-02-19 Comparative evaluation of the bonding efficacy of sixth and seventh generation bonding agents: An In-Vitro study Nair, Manuja Paul, Joseph Kumar, Satheesh Chakravarthy, Yadav Krishna, Vel Shivaprasad, J Conserv Dent Original Article AIMS: To compare the shear bond strength of sixth generation and seventh generation bonding agents to dentin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty human maxillary premolars were reduced to expose flat surface of dentin and divided into four equal groups, which were bonded using following bonding agents: Sixth generation bonding agents, Adper SE Plus and Xeno III and Seventh generation bonding agents, Adper Easy One and Xeno V. Composite cylinders were then built using a plastic mould on these prepared dentinal surfaces. Samples were stored in distilled water for 24 hours and tested for shear bond strength with universal testing machine. Shear force was applied perpendicular to the long axis of composite cylinder at adhesive-tooth interface until debonding occurred. The data so obtained were tabulated and analyzed statistically using independent-samples t test and analysis of variance (ANOVA) test RESULTS: The seventh generation adhesives showed significantly higher shear bond strength to dentin compared to sixth generation adhesives (P < 0.01). The highest value of shear bond strength was obtained from Adper Easy One system, while Adper SE Plus gave the lowest shear bond strength values. CONCLUSIONS: Seventh generation adhesives are more advantageous than sixth generation adhesives in dentin bonding as it requires less time, fewer steps, and better bond strength. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2014 /pmc/articles/PMC3915380/ /pubmed/24554856 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.124119 Text en Copyright: © Journal of Conservative Dentistry http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Nair, Manuja
Paul, Joseph
Kumar, Satheesh
Chakravarthy, Yadav
Krishna, Vel
Shivaprasad,
Comparative evaluation of the bonding efficacy of sixth and seventh generation bonding agents: An In-Vitro study
title Comparative evaluation of the bonding efficacy of sixth and seventh generation bonding agents: An In-Vitro study
title_full Comparative evaluation of the bonding efficacy of sixth and seventh generation bonding agents: An In-Vitro study
title_fullStr Comparative evaluation of the bonding efficacy of sixth and seventh generation bonding agents: An In-Vitro study
title_full_unstemmed Comparative evaluation of the bonding efficacy of sixth and seventh generation bonding agents: An In-Vitro study
title_short Comparative evaluation of the bonding efficacy of sixth and seventh generation bonding agents: An In-Vitro study
title_sort comparative evaluation of the bonding efficacy of sixth and seventh generation bonding agents: an in-vitro study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3915380/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24554856
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.124119
work_keys_str_mv AT nairmanuja comparativeevaluationofthebondingefficacyofsixthandseventhgenerationbondingagentsaninvitrostudy
AT pauljoseph comparativeevaluationofthebondingefficacyofsixthandseventhgenerationbondingagentsaninvitrostudy
AT kumarsatheesh comparativeevaluationofthebondingefficacyofsixthandseventhgenerationbondingagentsaninvitrostudy
AT chakravarthyyadav comparativeevaluationofthebondingefficacyofsixthandseventhgenerationbondingagentsaninvitrostudy
AT krishnavel comparativeevaluationofthebondingefficacyofsixthandseventhgenerationbondingagentsaninvitrostudy
AT shivaprasad comparativeevaluationofthebondingefficacyofsixthandseventhgenerationbondingagentsaninvitrostudy