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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jamadar, Asim, Vanti, Amulya, Uppin, Veerendra, Pujar, Madhu, Ghivari, Sheetal, Vagarali, Hemant
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