Cargando…
Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of sixth- and seventh-generation bonding agents with varying pH – An in vitro study
INTRODUCTION: To compare and evaluate the shear bond strength of sixth- and seventh-generation bonding agents with varying pH – an in vitro study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty extracted human premolar teeth were collected and cleaned and polished with pumice and water. The root portion of teeth was...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7720763/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33384490 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/JCD.JCD_543_19 |
_version_ | 1783619911554170880 |
---|---|
author | Jamadar, Asim Vanti, Amulya Uppin, Veerendra Pujar, Madhu Ghivari, Sheetal Vagarali, Hemant |
author_facet | Jamadar, Asim Vanti, Amulya Uppin, Veerendra Pujar, Madhu Ghivari, Sheetal Vagarali, Hemant |
author_sort | Jamadar, Asim |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: To compare and evaluate the shear bond strength of sixth- and seventh-generation bonding agents with varying pH – an in vitro study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty extracted human premolar teeth were collected and cleaned and polished with pumice and water. The root portion of teeth was resected, and only the coronal portion was embedded in the cold-cure acrylic resin. The labial surface of mounted teeth was prepared with a high-speed handpiece using #245 carbide bur. The samples prepared were divided into four groups, with 20 specimens in each group: Group A: Sixth-generation bonding agent, Adper Prompt L-Pop (APLP) (3M ESPE). Group B: Sixth-generation bonding agent, Xeno III (X III) (Dentsply). Group C: Seventh-generation bonding agent, Adper Easy One (AEO) (3M ESPE). Group D: Seventh-generation bonding agent, Xeno IV (X IV) (Dentsply). Tooth surface were rinsed and dried, and bonding agents were applied on tooth surface. Composite resin (Z-350 XT, 3M ESPE) was placed in a two-layer increment on tooth and was light cured. Specimens were subjected to the universal testing machine in a compression mode force at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min keeping blade parallel to the adhesive–dentin interface. Shear force required to debond the specimen was recorded in megapascal. The data obtained were analyzed statistically using ANOVA and post hoc test. RESULTS: AEO (pH = 2.3, Group C seventh generation) showed higher bond strength, and pH values did not influence the shear bond strength significantly in the tested adhesive systems. CONCLUSION: The pH values did not influence the shear bond strength significantly in the tested adhesive systems. ADPER EASY ONE (pH= 2.3, GROUP C Seventh Generation) showed higher bond strength followed by XENO IV(pH = 2.1, GROUP D), XENO III (pH = 1.5, GROUP B) on dentinal surface ,where as ADPER PROMPT L POP (pH =0.7 to 1 Sixth Generation, GROUP A) showed lower bond strength. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7720763 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Wolters Kluwer - Medknow |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-77207632020-12-30 Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of sixth- and seventh-generation bonding agents with varying pH – An in vitro study Jamadar, Asim Vanti, Amulya Uppin, Veerendra Pujar, Madhu Ghivari, Sheetal Vagarali, Hemant J Conserv Dent Original Article INTRODUCTION: To compare and evaluate the shear bond strength of sixth- and seventh-generation bonding agents with varying pH – an in vitro study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty extracted human premolar teeth were collected and cleaned and polished with pumice and water. The root portion of teeth was resected, and only the coronal portion was embedded in the cold-cure acrylic resin. The labial surface of mounted teeth was prepared with a high-speed handpiece using #245 carbide bur. The samples prepared were divided into four groups, with 20 specimens in each group: Group A: Sixth-generation bonding agent, Adper Prompt L-Pop (APLP) (3M ESPE). Group B: Sixth-generation bonding agent, Xeno III (X III) (Dentsply). Group C: Seventh-generation bonding agent, Adper Easy One (AEO) (3M ESPE). Group D: Seventh-generation bonding agent, Xeno IV (X IV) (Dentsply). Tooth surface were rinsed and dried, and bonding agents were applied on tooth surface. Composite resin (Z-350 XT, 3M ESPE) was placed in a two-layer increment on tooth and was light cured. Specimens were subjected to the universal testing machine in a compression mode force at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min keeping blade parallel to the adhesive–dentin interface. Shear force required to debond the specimen was recorded in megapascal. The data obtained were analyzed statistically using ANOVA and post hoc test. RESULTS: AEO (pH = 2.3, Group C seventh generation) showed higher bond strength, and pH values did not influence the shear bond strength significantly in the tested adhesive systems. CONCLUSION: The pH values did not influence the shear bond strength significantly in the tested adhesive systems. ADPER EASY ONE (pH= 2.3, GROUP C Seventh Generation) showed higher bond strength followed by XENO IV(pH = 2.1, GROUP D), XENO III (pH = 1.5, GROUP B) on dentinal surface ,where as ADPER PROMPT L POP (pH =0.7 to 1 Sixth Generation, GROUP A) showed lower bond strength. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2020 2020-11-05 /pmc/articles/PMC7720763/ /pubmed/33384490 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/JCD.JCD_543_19 Text en Copyright: © 2020 Journal of Conservative Dentistry http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Jamadar, Asim Vanti, Amulya Uppin, Veerendra Pujar, Madhu Ghivari, Sheetal Vagarali, Hemant Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of sixth- and seventh-generation bonding agents with varying pH – An in vitro study |
title | Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of sixth- and seventh-generation bonding agents with varying pH – An in vitro study |
title_full | Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of sixth- and seventh-generation bonding agents with varying pH – An in vitro study |
title_fullStr | Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of sixth- and seventh-generation bonding agents with varying pH – An in vitro study |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of sixth- and seventh-generation bonding agents with varying pH – An in vitro study |
title_short | Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of sixth- and seventh-generation bonding agents with varying pH – An in vitro study |
title_sort | comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of sixth- and seventh-generation bonding agents with varying ph – an in vitro study |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7720763/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33384490 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/JCD.JCD_543_19 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT jamadarasim comparativeevaluationofshearbondstrengthofsixthandseventhgenerationbondingagentswithvaryingphaninvitrostudy AT vantiamulya comparativeevaluationofshearbondstrengthofsixthandseventhgenerationbondingagentswithvaryingphaninvitrostudy AT uppinveerendra comparativeevaluationofshearbondstrengthofsixthandseventhgenerationbondingagentswithvaryingphaninvitrostudy AT pujarmadhu comparativeevaluationofshearbondstrengthofsixthandseventhgenerationbondingagentswithvaryingphaninvitrostudy AT ghivarisheetal comparativeevaluationofshearbondstrengthofsixthandseventhgenerationbondingagentswithvaryingphaninvitrostudy AT vagaralihemant comparativeevaluationofshearbondstrengthofsixthandseventhgenerationbondingagentswithvaryingphaninvitrostudy |