A morphological and tensile bond strength evaluation of an unfilled adhesive with low-viscosity composites and a filled adhesive in one and two coats.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to measure the tensile bond strength (TBS) testing of resin composite to dentin of three low-viscosity composites, in association with an unfilled adhesive, and a filled adhesive one and two coats respectively, and to evaluate and compare the SEM morphological observations.


METHODS
The labial surface of 120 bovine lower incisors were ground to obtain a flat dentin surface allowing demarcation of a 4 mm diameter area with adhesive tape. The teeth were randomly divided in six groups of 20 each. The dentin of each ground surface was etched with 35% H(3)PO(4) for 15s, followed by application of the respective adhesive: Single Bond (SB) for Groups 1, 2, 3 and 6; Optibond Solo (OS) for Groups 4 and 5. In Groups 1 and 4, a resin composite rod with a wire loop was luted directly to the adhesive surface with Z100. Group 2 received an intermediate layer of Flow It (FI) composite; Group 3 received an intermediate layer of Protect Liner F (PLF) composite; Group 5 received a second coat of OS; and Group 6 received an intermediate layer of an experimental low-viscosity composite (EM). A resin composite rod was luted to the surface of each specimen with Z100 resin composite. All specimens were stored in distilled water at 37 degrees C for 24h prior to TBS testing. Each specimen was inspected by SEM and classified according to adhesive or cohesive failure mode. One specimen of each group was cut longitudinally, polished and prepared for SEM observation.


RESULTS
The TBS values were: Group 1 (7.86MPa+/-2.28), Group 2 (7.62MPa+/-1.85), Group 3 (7.60MPa+/-2.14), Group 4 (7.96MPa+/-2.36), Group 5 (7.50MPa+/-2.70) and Group 6 (7.18MPa+/-2.40). No significant statistical differences were observed among the groups. However, the analyses of the failure mode presented a considerable variation.


CONCLUSIONS
The use of a filled adhesive or an unfilled adhesive along with a low-viscosity composite as an intermediate layer may provide a stress absorbing layer, whereby improving the preservation of the bonded interface area.
Montes
M A
MA
Department of Restorative Dentistry/Dental Materials, School of Dentistry of Piracicaba, UNICAMP Av. Limeira, 901, -SP, 13414-900, Piracicaba, Brazil. majrm@uol.com.br
de Goes
M F
MF
da Cunha
M R
MR
Soares
A B
AB
D000269:Adhesives; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D000818:Animals; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate; D002417:Cattle; D003188:Composite Resins; D001840:Dental Bonding / Q000379:methods*; D018772:Dental Marginal Adaptation; D019232:Dental Restoration Failure; D003806:Dentin Permeability; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents; D004548:Elasticity; D008422:Materials Testing; D008689:Methacrylates; D008855:Microscopy, Electron, Scanning; D019279:Resin Cements; D012822:Silicon Dioxide; D013499:Surface Properties; D013718:Tensile Strength; D014783:Viscosity; D015040:Zirconium
D000269:Adhesives; D003188:Composite Resins; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents; D008689:Methacrylates; C428805:OptiBond SOLO; C409388:Protect Liner F; D019279:Resin Cements; C083568:Z100 composite resin; C111840:flowable hybrid composite; C115612:single bond; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate; D012822:Silicon Dioxide; D015040:Zirconium