Shear bond strengths of one-bottle adhesives to oil-contaminated enamel.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate resin bond strength to enamel contaminated with handpiece oil.


METHODS
Bovine teeth were randomly assigned to six groups of 20 teeth each for treatment with one of six different bonding systems (five one-bottle and one multibottle). For each system, 10 enamel specimens were contaminated with handpiece oil before acid-etching and 10 were contaminated after acid-etching. The enamel was etched for 15 seconds using 35% phosphoric acid. Following adhesive application, composite resin was bonded using a gelatin capsule technique. Shear bond strengths from the two contaminated groups were compared to bond strengths to uncontaminated enamel obtained from a previous study that was performed by the same group of investigators, using the same facility, materials, and methods.


RESULTS
Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that the factor "surface contamination" did not have a significant effect on bond strength (p > .542). The type of adhesive and the interaction of adhesive and surface contamination were significant (p < .0001 and p < .003, respectively). When oil was applied before etching, mean bond strengths ranged from 18.0 +/- 4.8 MPa for OptiBond SOLO (Kerr Corp., Orange, California) to 25.3 +/- 5.6 MPa for Tenure Quik with Fluoride (Den-Mat Corp., Santa Maria, California). With oil applied after etching, bond strengths ranged from 18.4 +/- 8.0 MPa for Tenure Quik with Fluoride to 27.4 +/- 5.4 MPa for Single Bond (3M Dental Products, St. Paul, Minnesota). For the same adhesive, comparing uncontaminated and "oil-before-etch" contaminated groups, the only statistically significant difference in bond strengths was for OptiBond SOLO: 21.8 +/- 4.0 MPa (uncontaminated) versus 18.0 +/- 4.8 MPa (oil before etch). Comparing uncontaminated and "oil-after-etch" groups, the only statistically significant difference was for Tenure: 24.5 +/- 5.7 MPa (uncontaminated) and 18.4 +/- 8.0 MPa (oil after etch).
Rosa
B T
BT
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Heymann
H O
HO
Swift
E J
EJ
Perdigão
J
J
Ritter
A V
AV
D000704:Analysis of Variance; D000818:Animals; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate; D002417:Cattle; D003188:Composite Resins; D001840:Dental Bonding; D003743:Dental Enamel; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents; D008422:Materials Testing; D008689:Methacrylates; D009821:Oils; D011109:Polymethacrylic Acids; D011897:Random Allocation; D019279:Resin Cements; D018709:Statistics, Nonparametric; D013499:Surface Properties; D013718:Tensile Strength
C103506:Bis-GMA, BPDM, HEMA dental-bonding resin; D003188:Composite Resins; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents; D008689:Methacrylates; D009821:Oils; C428805:OptiBond SOLO; C092987:Optibond; D011109:Polymethacrylic Acids; C103500:Prime & Bond; D019279:Resin Cements; C425844:Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus; C115612:single bond; C403633:tenure quik; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate