title: Comparison of retentiveness of amalgam bonding agent types.
abstract: Previous studies on amalgam bonded restorations indicated that amalgam bonding agents increased the bond strength of amalgam to tooth structure. This in vitro study was designed to compare how the mode of curing and the presence of filler in the resin would affect the bond strength of amalgam. The five test groups of lining agents for amalgam restorations included Chemical-cured, Unfilled resin (CU-Clearfil New Bond); Light-cured, Unfilled resin with a delayed chemical-cure property (LU*-Clearfil Photo Bond); Light-cured, Filled resin with a delayed chemical-cure property (LF*-Clearfil Photo Bond + Protect Liner); Dual-cured, Unfilled resin (DU-All-Bond 2); and Varnish (V-Copalite). For each group, 20 class 5 cavity preparations were cut on the facial, lingual, or proximal surfaces of human molars, which were embedded in acrylic resin. The preparations were 2.5 mm deep and 3 mm wide at the pulpal floor with a slightly divergent taper. After treating the preparation with the bonding agent, a 3/4-inch, 18-gauge flat-headed wire nail was placed into the cavity with the head at the pulpal floor of the preparation, and Tytin amalgam was then condensed into the preparation around the nail. The restorations were stored for 24 hours in distilled water at 37 degrees C and then subjected to 2500 thermal cycles (8 degrees C to 48 degrees C). After 1 week, specimens were tested to failure in tension using an Instron Universal Testing Machine (crosshead speed = 2 mm/min) and peak load (kg) was recorded. The mean loads at failure (+/- SD) were LF* 26.4 (+/- 7.0), DU 23.9 (+/- 6.4), LU* 16.0 (+/- 3.1), CU 14.3 (+/- 8.0), and V 9.5 (+/- 5.6). Significant differences were found using a one-way ANOVA and the Games and Howell post hoc test at a significance level of alpha = 0.05. The LF* and DU groups were not significantly different from each other, but they were significantly higher in peak load than all other groups. LU* was significantly higher than the varnish (V) but not significantly higher than CU. CU was not significantly higher than the varnish (V). The adhesives forming a thicker resin interface (the light-cured resin with filled resin liner and the dual-cured unfilled resin) demonstrated significantly greater retention than the light-cured unfilled resin, chemical-cured unfilled resin, and the varnish control.
authors.affiliation: Indiana University School of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Indianapolis 46202, USA.
authors.forename: M M
authors.initials: MM
authors.lastname: Winkler
authors.forename: B K
authors.initials: BK
authors.lastname: Moore
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Allen
authors.forename: B
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Rhodes
mesh_terms: D000268:Adhesiveness; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D003188:Composite Resins; D003722:Dental Alloys; D003723:Dental Amalgam; D001840:Dental Bonding / Q000379:methods*; D003736:Dental Cavity Lining; D003764:Dental Materials; D019232:Dental Restoration Failure; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents; D008422:Materials Testing; D008689:Methacrylates; D008855:Microscopy, Electron, Scanning; D019279:Resin Cements; D012116:Resins, Plant; D016019:Survival Analysis
chemical_list: C074864:All-Bond system; C029849:Clearfil Bonding Agent; C084544:Clearfil Linerbond System; D003188:Composite Resins; D003722:Dental Alloys; D003764:Dental Materials; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents; D008689:Methacrylates; D019279:Resin Cements; D012116:Resins, Plant; C023806:Copalite; C036886:tytin; D003723:Dental Amalgam