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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |