Influence of Operator Experience on In Vitro Bond Strength of Dentin Adhesives
Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey. The journal of adhesive dentistry
(Impact Factor: 1.31).
09/2011; 14(3):223-7. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a22191
To examine the influence of operator experience level on shear bond strength (SBS) of a self-etching adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond [CSE], Kuraray) and an etch-and-rinse adhesive (Single Bond [SB], 3M ESPE).
Flat dentin surfaces were created on 120 extracted human third molars. Bonding agents and composite resin were applied and light cured according to manufacturers' directions (n = 15). Four operators with different levels of experience in operative dentistry performed the same specimen preparation steps independently: group 1: specialist in operative dentistry; group 2: post-graduate student; group 3: undergraduate dental student; group 4: private general practitioner. Specimens were stored in distilled water for 24 h at 37°C before SBS testing. Statistical analyses were carried out with Mann-Whitney U- and Kruskall-Wallis tests.
For CSE, mean SBS and standard deviations were: (1) 54.4 ± 15.6(a), (2) 55.3 ± 7.6(a), (3) 49.4 ± 10.5(ab), (4) 41.6 ± 13.1(b). For SB, they were: (1) 28.6 ± 10.3(c), (2) 32.7 ± 11.2(c), (3) 17.5 ± 5.6(d), (4) 24.4 ± 9.5(cd). Groups with the same superscript letters are not significantly different. CSE showed higher bond strengths than SB in all groups (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in mean bond strengths between groups 1 and 2 for each adhesive (p > 0.05). Depending on the adhesives, groups 3 and 4 were significantly different from groups 1 and 2, but not different from each other.
Operator experience influences dentin bond strength values of dentin adhesives. An increased level of experience with a specific adhesive system and the associated application procedures correlates with higher SBSs.
Available from: Siegward Heintze
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To evaluate the variability of bond strength test results of adhesive systems (AS) and to correlate the results with clinical parameters of clinical studies investigating cervical restorations.
Regarding the clinical studies, the internal database which had previously been used for a meta-analysis on cervical restorations was updated with clinical studies published between 2008 and 2012 by searching the PubMed and SCOPUS databases. PubMed and the International Association for Dental Research abstracts online were searched for laboratory studies on microtensile, macrotensile and macroshear bond strength tests. The inclusion criteria were (1) dentin, (2) testing of at least four adhesive systems, (3) same diameter of composite and (4) 24h of water storage prior to testing. The clinical outcome variables were retention loss, marginal discoloration, detectable margins, and a clinical index comprising the three parameters by weighing them. Linear mixed models which included a random study effect were calculated for both, the laboratory and the clinical studies. The variability was assessed by calculating a ratio of variances, dividing the variance among the estimated bonding effects obtained in the linear mixed models by the sum of all variance components estimated in these models.
Thirty-two laboratory studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria comprising 183 experiments. Of those, 86 used the microtensile test evaluating 22 adhesive systems (AS). Twenty-seven used the macrotensile test with 17 AS, and 70 used the macroshear test with 24 AS. For 28 AS the results from clinical studies were available. Microtensile and macrotensile (Spearman rho=0.66, p=0.007) were moderately correlated and also microtensile and macroshear (Spearman rho=0.51, p=0.03) but not macroshear and macrotensile (Spearman rho=0.34, p=0.22). The effect of the adhesive system was significant for microtensile and macroshear (p<0.001) but not for macrotensile. The effect of the adhesive system could explain 36% of the variability of the microtensile test, 27% of the macrotensile and 33% of the macroshear test. For the clinical trials, about 49% of the variability of retained restorations could be explained by the adhesive system. With respect to the correlation between bond strength tests and clinical parameters, only a moderate correlation between micro- and macrotensile test results and marginal discoloration was demonstrated. However, no correlation between these tests and a retention loss or marginal integrity was shown. The correlation improved when more studies were included compared to assessing only one study.
The high variability of bond strength test results highlights the need to establish individual acceptance levels for a given test institute. The weak correlation of bond-strength test results with clinical parameters leads to the conclusion that one should not rely solely on bond strength tests to predict the clinical performance of an adhesive system but one should conduct other laboratory tests like tests on the marginal adaptation of fillings in extracted teeth and the retention loss of restorations in non-retentive cavities after artificial aging.
Copyright © 2015 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Dental materials: official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials 02/2015; 31(4). DOI:10.1016/j.dental.2015.01.011 · 3.77 Impact Factor
Available from: Kantheti Sirisha
- "Operator skill and technique sensitivity influenced the dentin bond strengths. Hence, it is recommended to involve different operators with uniform basic training in each series of experiments. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Adhesive systems are selected based on their bond strengths achieved while testing in laboratories. These bond strengths can predict the longevity of a restoration to some extent. There were several discrepancies in the reported bond strengths. To critically review the reliability of macro-bond strength tests used to evaluate resin-tooth interface. Relevant literature published between January 1983 and May 2013 was collected from PubMed database, Google scholar, and hand-searched journals of Conservative Dentistry, Endodontics and Dental materials. Variables that influence the test outcome are categorized into substrate-related factors, factors related to specimen properties, preparation of specimens, and test methodology. Impact of these variables on the test outcome is critically analyzed. There is lack of a standard format for reporting the bond strength tests, which could lead to misinterpretation of the data and bonding abilities of adhesives.
Journal of Conservative Dentistry 07/2014; 17(4):305-11. DOI:10.4103/0972-0707.136340
Available from: Rafael R. Moraes
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Extensively destroyed teeth are commonly restored with composite resin before cavity preparation for indirect restorations. The longevity of the restoration can be related to the proper bonding of the resin cement to the composite. This study aimed to evaluate the microshear bond strength of two self-adhesive resin cements to composite resin.
COMPOSITE DISCS WERE SUBJECT TO ONE OF SIX DIFFERENT SURFACE PRETREATMENTS: none (control), 35% phosphoric acid etching for 30 seconds (PA), application of silane (silane), PA + silane, PA + adhesive, or PA + silane + adhesive (n = 6). A silicone mold containing a cylindrical orifice (1 mm(2) diameter) was placed over the composite resin. RelyX Unicem (3M ESPE) or BisCem (Bisco Inc.) self-adhesive resin cement was inserted into the orifices and light-cured. Self-adhesive cement cylinders were submitted to shear loading. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (p < 0.05).
Independent of the cement used, the PA + Silane + Adhesive group showed higher microshear bond strength than those of the PA and PA + Silane groups. There was no difference among the other treatments. Unicem presented higher bond strength than BisCem for all experimental conditions.
Pretreatments of the composite resin surface might have an effect on the bond strength of self-adhesive resin cements to this substrate.
02/2014; 39(1):12-6. DOI:10.5395/rde.2014.39.1.12
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.