Advertisement

European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp 246–252 | Cite as

An in vitro comparison of short and long term shear bond strengths of polyacid modified composite resins to primary human and bovine enamel and dentine

  • K. C. TitleyEmail author
  • S. Childers
  • G. Kulkarni
Article

Abstract

Aim: This in vitro study compared the shear bond strengths and fracture patterns over 7 and 180 day periods of two PMCR’s bonded to both human and bovine primary tooth enamel and dentine to determine if the bovine tooth model is a suitable substitute for the human tooth model. Methods: Flattened enamel and dentine surfaces were produced using water irrigated #600 grit SiC paper and the teeth randomly placed in groups of N=10. Cylinders of Dyract AP (Dentsply/De Trey) or F2000 (3M/ESPE) were bonded to the surfaces that were either etched with 37% H3PO4 (etch, E groups) or treated with their respective conditioners, primers and adhesives (no etch, NE groups). The teeth were stored in distilled water at 37°C and shear bond strength (SBS) tested to failure at either 7 (human and bovine) or 180 days (bovine). The modes of failure were assessed under a dissecting microscope at x30. Results: In general the results showed comparable mean SBS for both human and bovine enamel with Dyract AP, E and NE, and F2000, E. Lower enamel SBS were recorded for F2000 NE but there was no significant difference between the species. There were no significant differences in mean SBS for bovine enamel after long term storage. For dentine, significantly larger SBS were recorded for human teeth versus bovine teeth for all of the four bonding protocols. There were also significant species differences, the mean SBS for Dyract AP, E and F2000, E for human dentine were higher than bovine but the mean SBS for the respective NE groups showed no significant differences between the species. It was concluded that 37% H3PO4 has a detrimental effect on SBS for bovine dentine. Over long term storage SBS of bovine dentin bonds decreased. The modes of failure were related to SBS with varying degrees of significance. Conclusion: Bovine primary incisor enamel and dentine, provided the latter is not conditioned with 37%H3PO4, are suitable alternative test SBS substrates for human enamel and dentine.

Key words

shear bond strength compomers primary bovine teeth primary human teeth 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Caldwell R, Kulkarni G, Titley K. Does single versus stepped curing of composite resins affect their shear bond strength? J Canad Dent Assoc. 2001; 67(10): 588–592.Google Scholar
  2. Cehreli F, Usmen E. Effect of surface conditioning on the shear bond strength of compomers to human primary and permanent enamel. Am J Dent. 1999; 12:26–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Chan A, Titley K, Chernecky R, Smith DC. A short and long-term shear bond strength study using acids of varying dilutions on bovine dentine. J Dent. 1997; 25:145–152.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Christensen G. Overcoming challenges with resin in Class II situations. JADA. 1997; 128:1579–1580.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. DeMunck J De, Van Meerbeek B, Yoshida Y, et al. Four-year degradation of total-etch adhesives bonded to dentin. J Dent Res. 2003; 82:136–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hosoya Y, Goto G. Resin adhesion to ground primary enamel. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1992; 17:25–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Hosoya Y Nishiguchi M, Kashiwabara Y Horiuchi A. Comparison of two dentin adhesives to primary vs. permanent bovine dentine. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1997; 22:69–76.Google Scholar
  8. ISO TR 11405 Technical report: Dental materials — guidance on testing of adhesion to tooth structure. International Organization for Standardization 1994(E).Google Scholar
  9. McComb D. Replacement of silver amalgam restorations with composite resin restorations. Oral Health. 2003; 93(1):17–18.Google Scholar
  10. Meiers JC, Young D. Two year composite to dentin shear bond strengths. J Dent Res. 2000; 79:296. Abstract 2925.Google Scholar
  11. Nakabeyashi N. Dentineal bonding mechanisms. Quint Int. 1991; 22:73–74.Google Scholar
  12. Nakamichi I, Iwaku M, Fusayama T. Bovine teeth as possible substitutes in the adhesion test. J Dent Res. 1983; 62:1076–1081.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Osterle LJ, Shellhart WC, Belanger GK. The use of bovine enamel in bonding studies. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1998; 114:514–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Price RB, Hall GC. In vitro comparison of 10-minute versus 24 hour shear bond strengths of six dentin bonding systems. Quint Int. 1999; 30:122–134.Google Scholar
  15. Ruggeberg FA. Substrate for adhesion testing on tooth structure — review of the literature. A report of the ASC MD156 task group on test methods for the adhesion of restorative materials. Dent Mater. 1991; 7:2–10.Google Scholar
  16. Retief DH, Mandras RS, Russell CM, Denys FR. Extracted human versus teeth in laboratory studies. Am J Dent. 1990; 3:253–258.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Roeters JJM, Frankenmolen F, Burgersdijk RCW, Peters TCRB. Clinical evaluation of dyract in primary molars: 3 year results. Am J Dent. 1998;11:143–148.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Rosa BT, Perdigao J. Bond strengths of non rinsing adhesives. Quint Int. 2000; 31:353–358.Google Scholar
  19. Tate WH, You C, Powers J. Bond strength of compomers to human enamel. Oper Dent. 2000; 25:235–242.Google Scholar
  20. Ten Cate AR. Oral histology: development.structure and function. 1998. 5th edition, CV Mosby, St. Louis.Google Scholar
  21. Titley K, Chan A, Chernecky R, Smith DC. An SEM examination of etched and bonded bovine dentin surfaces. U of Toronto Dent J. 1996; 10:27–35.Google Scholar
  22. Titley KC, Chernecky R, Rossouw PE, Kulkarni GV. The effect of various storage methods and media on shear bond strengths of dental composite resin to bovine dentin. Arch Oral Biol. 1998; 43:305–311.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Titley K, Caldwell R, Kulkarni G. Factors that affect the shear bond strength of multiple component and single bottle adhesives to dentin. Am J Dent. 2003; 16:120–124.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Van Meerbeek B, Perdigao J, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. The clinical performance of adhesives. J Dent. 1998; 26:1–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Van Noort R, Cardew GE, Howard IC, Noroozi S. The effect of local interfacial geometry on the measurement of the tensile bond strength to dentin. J Dent Res. 1991; 70:889–893.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wucher M, Grobler SR, Senekal PJC. A 3-year evaluation of a compomer, a composite and a compomer/composite (sandwich) in Class II restorations. Am J Dent. 2002; 15:274–278.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dept. Paediatric Dentistry, Faculty of DentistryUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations