Evaluation Of Shear Bond Strength Of Two Dentin Bonding Agents With Two Desensitizers – An In-Vitro Study
Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength of Two Dentin Bonding Agents with Two Desensitizers – An In-Vitro Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70284/njirm.v7i3.1081Keywords:
2-hydroxyl ethyl methacrylate, glutaraldehyde, rewetting agents, shear bond strengthAbstract
Background & Objective: The aesthetic quality of a restoration may be as important to the mental health
of the patient as the biological and technical qualities of the restoration are to his physical or dental health. In
Conservative Dentistry; to mimic, repair and reconstruct the natural tooth structure for the long term, would be
based on the use of a restorative material retained only by an adhesive system, whether in load bearing or non-load
bearing environments. To achieve high strength, bonds between tooth structure and restorative materials have been
a long term goal of dental profession. Objective is to compare the shear bond strength of two different dentin
bonding agents with two different desensitizers. Methodology: Eighty molars were taken, which were ground to
expose dentin. The teeth were divided into two major groups. Each major group was subdivided into four subgroups
of 10 samples each. Groups Ia and IIa were treated as dry bonding groups, groups Ib and IIb were treated as moist
bonding groups, group Ic and IIc were rewetted with Gluma desensitizer, and groups Id and IId were rewetted with
Systemp® desensitizer. Major group I was treated with Gluma comfort bond and Charisma. Major group II was
treated with 3M ESPE Adperâ„¢ Single Bond 2 and 3M ESPE Filtekâ„¢ Z250. The samples were thermocycled and shear
bond test was performed using Instron machine. The data was analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and
Tukey’s significant different test. Results: The results revealed that the specimens rewetted with Gluma desensitizer
showed the higher shear bond strength compared to all other groups, irrespective of the bonding agent or composite
resin used. Conclusion: It can be concluded that the moist or rewetting technique could preserve the micromorphological
integrity of the collagen resulting in the optimum penetration of adhesive resin into the demineralized
layer, thus, giving higher bond strength. [Joshi P NJIRM 2016; 7(3):67 - 74]
References
eleventh edition, pg 383.
2. Nakabayashi N, Pashley DH. Hybridization of
dental Tissues. Che.3, 1, 2.Tokyo: Quintessence
publishing co Ltd; 1998.
3. Kanca J 3rd. Resin bonding to wet substrate. 1.
Bonding to dentin. Quintessence Int 1992;23:39-
41.
4. Pilo R, Cardash HS, Oz-Ari B, Ben-Amar A. Effect of
preliminary treatment of the dentin surface on the
shear bond strength of resin composite to dentin.
Oper Dent 2001;26:569-75.
5. Marshall G.W. Jr,Marshall S.J., Kinney J.H.,
BaloochM.The dentin substrate : structure and
properties related to bonding. Journal of Dentistry,
1997;25:441-458.
6. Al Qahtani MQ, Platt JA, Moore BK, Cochran MA.
The effect on shear bond strength of rewetting dry
dentin with two desensitizers. Oper Dent
2003;28:287-96.
7. Pilo R, Cardash HS, Oz-Ari B, Ben-Amar A. Effect of
preliminary treatment of the dentin surface on the
shear bond strength of resin composite to dentin.
Oper Dent 2001;26:569-75.
8. Perdigão J, Van Meerbeek B, Lopes MM, Ambrose
WW. The effect of a re-wetting agent on dentin
bonding. Dent Mater 1999;15:282-95.
9. Perdigão J, Swift EJ Jr, Heymann HO, Malek MA.
Effect of a re-wetting agent on the performance of
acetone-based dentin adhesives. Am J Dent
1998;11:207-13.
10. Ivan S, Thomas H, Ellis ES. Adhesion to tooth
structure mediated by contemporary bonding
system. Dent Clin N Am 2007;51:677-694.
11. Triolo PT, Swift EJ, Barkmeir WW. Shear Bond
strengths of composite to dentin using six dental
adhesives systems. Oper Dent 1995; 20:46-50.
12. Haller B. Recent developments in dentin bonding.
Am J Dent 2000; 13:44-50.
13. Gallo JR 3rd, Henderson M, Burgess JO. Shear bond
strength to moist and dry dentin of four dentin
bonding systems. Am J Dent 2000; 13:267-270.
14. Kulton CG, Qian XJ, Suh BI. Moist Bonding vs Dry
Bonding for three Dental Bonding system. J Dent
Res 1996; IADR Abstracts 75.Special issue;
2999,392
15. Tay FR, Gwinnett AJ, Pang KM, Wei SH. Variability
in Micro leakage observed in a total etches wetbonding
technique under Different Handling
Conditions. J Dent Res 1995; 74:1168-78.
16. Van Meerbeek B, Yoshida Y, Lambrechts P,
Vanherle G, Duke ES, Eick JD, et al. A TEM study of
two water based adhesive systems bonded to Dry
and Wet Dentin. J Dent Res 1998
17. Lopes GC. Shear bond strength of acetone based
one bottle adhesive system. Braz Dent J 2006;
17(1):39-43.
18. Lehmann N, Degrange M. Effect of four
desensitizers on the shear bond strength of three
bonding systems. European Cells and Materials
2005; 9.Suppl (1):52-3.
19. Soares CJ, Santos Filho PC, Barreto BC, Mota AS.
Effect of previous desensitizer and rewetting agent
application on shear bond strength of bonding
systems to dentin. Cienc odontol bras 2006; 9(4):6-
11.
20. Ritter AV, Bertoli C, Swift EF Jr. Shear Bond
Strengths of Gluma Bonding Systems to Dentin. J
Dent Res 2000; 79:1852.
21. Ritter AV, Heymann HO, Swift EJ Jr, Perdigão J,
Rosa BT. Effects of different re-wetting techniques
on dentin shear bond strengths. J Esthet Restor
Dent 2000; 12:85-96.
22. Bansal A, Shivanna V. Effect of Rewetting agents
on the shear bond strength of different bonding
agents when applied on dry dentin. J Conserv Dent
2007; 10:26-32.
23. Dijkman GE, Jongebloed WL, de Vries J, Ogaard B,
Arends J. Closing of dentinal tubules by
glutaraldehyde treatment, a scanning electron
microscopy study. Scand J Dent Res 1994; 102:144-
50.
24. Bhatia S, Krishnaswami MM. Effect of two different
dentin desensitizers on shear bond strength of two
different bonding agents to dentin: an in vitro
study. Journal of Conservative Dentistry 2012;
23:703-708.
25. Jorge Perdigao. Dentin bonding as a function of
dentin structure. Dent Clin N Am(2002) 277-301
