Retentive strength of an amalgam bonding agent: chemical vs light vs dual curing.
Dentin bonding agents have been shown to enhance retention of amalgam restorations by mechanical means. Little research is available on which mode of curing may optimize amalgam bonding. This in vitro study compared the bond strengths exhibited by three variations of a bonding agent, each using a different curing mode, with two earlier versions of amalgam resin liners and cavity varnish. The six test groups of lining agents for amalgam restorations included [C] chemical-cured, [L] light-cured and [D] dual-cured versions of one filled adhesive resin (Clearfil Liner Bond 2V), [LF] Light-cured, Filled resin (Clearfil Liner Bond 2, Kuraray Co.); [LCF] Light- and Chemical-cured, Filled resin Clearfil Liner Bond + Protect Liner, Kuraray Co) and [V] Varnish (Copalite, Cooley & Cooley, Ltd). For each group, 20 Class V cavity preparations were cut in human molars. 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 seated in the cavity with its head at the pulpal floor of the preparation, and Tytin amalgam (Kerr Corp, Romulus, MI) was condensed into the preparation around the nail. All restorations were stored for 24 hours in distilled water at 37 degrees C, then subjected to 2500 thermal cycles (8 degrees C to 58 degrees C). After one week the samples were tested to failure in tension using an Instron Universal Testing Machine (crosshead speed = 2 mm/min) and peak load (kg) was recorded. Significant differences in retention were found using ANOVA and the Games & Howell post hoc test (p = 0.05). The mean loads at failure (+/- SD) were C 13.1 (+/- 2.4), L 21.8 (+/- 6.1), D 26.8 (+/- 7.4), LCF 23.8 (+/- 7.4), LF 21.4 (+/- 3.3) and V 2.0 (+/- 1.8). All dentin-bonding agents exhibited significantly greater retention than the varnish. While the bond strengths of the dual cured (D) and the light-cured (L) liners were not significantly different from one another, both were significantly higher than the chemically-cured (C) resin liner in terms of retention.
Winkler
M M
MM
Department of Operative Dentistry and Biomaterials, LSU School of Dentistry, 1100 Florida Ave, New Orleans, LA 70119, USA.
Rhodes
B
B
Moore
B K
BK
D000704:Analysis of Variance; D055598:Chemical Phenomena; D002627:Chemistry, Physical; D003722:Dental Alloys / Q000737:chemistry; D003723:Dental Amalgam / Q000737:chemistry*; D001840:Dental Bonding; D003736:Dental Cavity Lining; D003737:Dental Cavity Preparation / Q000145:classification; D003764:Dental Materials / Q000737:chemistry; D003799:Dental Stress Analysis / Q000295:instrumentation; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents / Q000737:chemistry*; D006801:Humans; D008027:Light; D016013:Likelihood Functions; D008422:Materials Testing; D008689:Methacrylates / Q000737:chemistry; D018613:Microscopy, Confocal; D008963:Molar; D010150:Paint; D019279:Resin Cements / Q000737:chemistry; D012116:Resins, Plant; D013314:Stress, Mechanical; D013499:Surface Properties; D013816:Thermodynamics; D014867:Water
C112274:Clearfil Liner Bond 2; D003722:Dental Alloys; D003764:Dental Materials; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents; D008689:Methacrylates; C409388:Protect Liner F; D019279:Resin Cements; D012116:Resins, Plant; D014867:Water; C023806:Copalite; C036886:tytin; D003723:Dental Amalgam