Evaluation of the shear bond strength of 3 curing bracket bonding systems combined with an antibacterial adhesive

WOS: 000248107100013PubMed ID: 17628254Introduction: The purpose of this in-vitro study was to investigate the shear/peel bond strength of metal brackets bonded to human enamel with differently cured bonded systems combined with an antibacterial adhesive component. Methods: One hundred twenty extracted molars were divided into 3 groups. Stainless steel brackets were bonded with 1 of 3 systems: group 1, no-mix bonding adhesive (Unite, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) (n = 40); group 2, 2-paste chemically cured bonding resin (Concise, 3M Unitek) (n = 40); and group 3, light-cured adhesive (Transbond XT, 3M Unitek) ( n = 40). Each bonding group was separated into experimental ( n = 20) and control groups (n = 20). In the 3 experimental groups, an antibacterial self-etch adhesive (Clearfil Protect Bond, Kurary, Osaka, Japan) was also applied to the enamel. Specimens in the control groups were bonded only with their relevant bonding systems according to the manufacturers' instructions. All specimens were stored in distilled water for 24 hours and thermocycled before testing. Debonded specimens were scored with the adhesive remnant index. Results: The mean bond strengths ( in megapascals) were 9.8 (control, 15.7) in group 1, 12.0 ( control, 18.5) in group 2, and 11.6 (control, 12.4) in group 3. Statistical analysis with t tests showed no difference between group 3 and its control (P = .178), whereas groups 1 and 2 were statistically different from their controls (P = .000). Conclusions: The results indicated that the newly developed antibacterial self-etch adhesive can be combined with various bonding systems; achieved bond strengths were clinically more than satisfactory

Effect of an antibacterial adhesive on the bond strength of three different luting resin composites

WOS: 000239495800002PubMed ID: 16288949Objectives: Effect of a dentin adhesive system containing antibacterial monomer-MDPB (Clearfil Protect Bond) on the shear bond strength of all-ceramic-IPS Empress 2 restorations luted with three different dual-polymerizing systems (Variolink 2, RelyX ARC and Panavia F 2.0) to dentin was investigated. Methods: One hundred and eight all-ceramic discs (2X3 mm; IPS Empress 2) were fabricated and ultrasonically cleaned. The buccal surfaces of 108 non-carious extracted human premolars were flattened to expose dentin and subsequently polished with 600-grit wet silicon carbide paper. Three dual-polymerizing luting systems had test groups and control groups consisting of 18 samples each. For the test groups Clearfil Protect Bond was applied to the exposed dentin surfaces. Control groups received the original bonding procedures of each adhesive system. After the all-ceramic samples were luted to the teeth, thermocycling was performed 5000 times. Shear bond strengths were tested using Shimadzu Universal Testing Machine until failure. Analysis of fractured dentin surfaces were performed using Optical Microscope at X 10 and X 1000 magnifications and the images were analyzed with Image Analyzer. Data was analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Bonferroni test at a significance [eve( of p<0.05. Results: Mean shear bond strength data of the groups in MPa were; Variolink: 20.45+/-4.75, Variolink+Clearfil Protect Bond: 29.32 +/- 2.37, RelyX ARC:18.82 +/- 3.19, RelyXARC+Clearfil Protect Bond: 25.58 +/- 4.05, Panavia F2.0:17.11 +/- 2.98, Panavia F 2.0+Clearfil Protect Bond: 24.40 +/- 7.46. Application of the antibacterial adhesive increased the shear bond strengths of all three dual-polymerizing systems to dentin (p=0.00). The surface analysis showed that most of the specimens showed the adhesive failure mode between the dentin and the composite luting agent interface. Conclusion: The antibacterial adhesive system Clearfil Protect Bond can be safety used to prevent the potential risk of complications resulting from bacterial. activity regardless of affecting the bond strength of IPS Empress 2 restorations luted with the dual-polimerizing systems used in this study. (C) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved