Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics

The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry (대한치과보존학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparative evaluation of micro-shear bond strength between two different luting methods of resin cement to dentin

합착 술식에 따른 레진 합착제의 상아질에 대한 미세전단결합강도의 비교 연구

  • Lee, Yoon-Jeong (Department of Conservative Dentistry, Division of Dentistry, Graduate School Kyunghee University) ;
  • Park, Sang-Jin (Department of Conservative Dentistry, Division of Dentistry, Graduate School Kyunghee University) ;
  • Choi, Kyoung-Kyu (Department of Conservative Dentistry, Division of Dentistry, Graduate School Kyunghee University)
  • 이윤정 (경희대학교 대학원 치의학과 치과보존학교실) ;
  • 박상진 (경희대학교 대학원 치의학과 치과보존학교실) ;
  • 최경규 (경희대학교 대학원 치의학과 치과보존학교실)
  • Published : 2005.07.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of dual bonding technique by comparing microshear bond strength between two different luting methods of resin cement to tooth dentin. Three dentin bonding systems(All-Bond 2, One-Step, Clearfil SE Bond), two temporary cements (Propac, Freegenol) were used in this study. In groups used conventional luting procedure, dentin surfaces were left untreated. In groups used dual bonding technique, three dentin bonding systems were applied to each dentin surface. All specimens were covered with each temporary cement. The temporary cements were removed and each group was treated using one of three different dentin bonding system. A resin cement was applied to the glass cylinder surface and the cylinder was bonded to the dentin surface. Then, micro-shear bond strength test was performed. For the evaluation of the morphology at the resin/dentin interface, SEM examination was also performed. 1. Conventional luting procedure showed higher micro-shear bond strengths than dual boning technique. However, there were no significant differences. 2. Freegenol showed higher micro-shear bond strengths than Propac, but there were no significant differences. 3. In groups used dual bonding technique, SE Bond showed significantly higher micro-shear bond strengths in One-Step and All-Bond 2 (p<0.05), but there was no significant difference between One-Step and All-Bond 2. 4. In SEM observation, with the use of All-Bond 2 and One-Step, very long and numerous resin tags were observed. This study suggests that there were no findings that the dual bonding technique would be better than the conventional luting procedure.

본 연구는 합착 술식에 따른 레진 합착제의 상아질에 대한 미세전단결합강도를 비교 연구하여 이중 접착 술식의 유용성을 평가하고자 시행되었다. 합착 술식은 전통 합착 술식과 이중 접착 술식, 임시 합착제는 Propac과 Freegenol, 상아질 접착제는 All-Bond 2, One-Step, Clearfil SE Bond를 사용하였다. 이중 접착 술식을 적용한 군에서만 상아질 접착제 처리 후, 모든 시편에 임시 합착제를 도포하였다. 이후 임시 합착제를 제거하고 상아질 접착제 적용 후 유리봉에 레진 합착제를 도포하여 상아질 면에 접착하였다. 미세전단결합 강도를 측정하고 접착 계면을 주사전자현미경으로 관찰하였다. 1. 전통 합착 술식이 이중 접착 술식보다 높은 미세전단결합강도를 보였으나 통계학적 유의 차가 없었다. 2. Freegenol이 Propac보다 높은 미세전단결합강도를 보였으나 유의차가 없었다. 3. 미세전단결합강도는 이중 접착 술식 을 적용한 경우 Clearfil SE Bond가 One-step, All-Bond 2보다 유의성 있게 높았으나(p<0.05) One-step, All-Bond 2 간 유의차는 없었다. 4. 전자현미경 소견에서 All-Bond 2와 One-Step을 사용한 군은 길고 수많은 resin tag가 관찰되었다. 본 연구 결과 전통 합착 술식과 비교하여 이중 접착 술식의 우수함을 확인하지 못하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Tyas MJ, Anusavice KJ, Frencken JE, Mount GJ. Minimal intervention dentistry. Int Dent J 20:1-12, 2000.
  2. Versluis A, Douglas WH, Cross M, Sakaguchi RL. Does an incremental filling technique reduce the polymerization shrinkage stress$?$J Dent Res 75:871-878, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345960750030301
  3. Fontana M, Dunipace AJ, Gregory RL, Noblitt TW, Li Y, Park KK, Stookey GK. An in vitro microbiological model for studying secondary careis formatioon. Caries Res 30:112-118, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1159/000262146
  4. Inokoshi S, Willems G, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P, Braem M, Vanherle G. Dual-cure luting composites : Part I : Filler particle distribution. J Oral Rehabil 20:133-146, 1993. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1993.tb01597.x
  5. Burrow MF, Nikaido T, Satoh M, Tagami J. Early bonding of resin cements to dentin. Oper Dent 21:196-202, 1996.
  6. Eliades G. Clinical relevance of the formulation and testing of dentine bonding systems. J Dent 22:73-81, 1994. https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-5712(94)90004-3
  7. Frankenberger R, Kramer N, Petschelt A. Technique sensitivity of dentin bonding : Effect of application mistakes on bond strength and marginal adaptation. Oper Dent 25:324-330, 2000.
  8. El-Mowafy OM, Bennergui C. Radiopacity of resinbased inlay luting cements. Oper Dent 19:11-15, 1994.
  9. Milleding P, Ortengren U, Karlsson S. Ceramic inlay systems : some clinical aspects. J Oral Rehabil 22:571-580, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1995.tb01051.x
  10. Watanabe I, Nakabayashi N, Pashley PH. Bonding to ground dentin by a Phenyl-P self-etching primer. J Dent Res 73:1212-1220, 1994. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345940730061301
  11. Xie J, Powers JM, McGuckin RS. In vitro bond strength of two adhesives to enamel and dentin under normal and contaminated conditions. Dent Mater 9:295-299, 1993. https://doi.org/10.1016/0109-5641(93)90046-S
  12. Kaneshima T, Yatani H, Kassai T, Watanabe EK, Yamashita A. The influence of blood contamination on bond strengths between dentin and adhesive resin cement. Oper Dent 25:195-201, 2000.
  13. Christensen GJ. Resin cements and post-operative sensitivity. J Am Dent Assoc 131:1197-1199, 2000. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2000.0357
  14. Paul SJ, Scharer P. The dual bonding technique : A modified method to improve adhesive luting procedures. Int J Periodont Rest Dent 17:537-545, 1997.
  15. DeGoes MF, Nikaido T, Pereira PNR, Tagami J. Early bond strengths of dual- cured resin cement to resincoated dentin. J Dent Res 79:453, 2000.
  16. Bertschinger C, Paul SJ, Luthy H, Scharer P. Dual application of dentin bonding agents : effects on bond strengths. Am J Dent 9:115-119, 1996.
  17. Baier RE. Principles of adhesion. Oper Dent Supplement 5:1-9, 1992.
  18. Terata R. Characterization of enamel and dentin surfaces after removal of temporary cement - study on removal of temporary cement. Dent Mater 12:18-28, 1993. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.12.18
  19. Marshall SJ, Marshall GW, Harcourt JK. The influence of various cavity bases on the micro-hardness of composites. Aust Dent J 27:291-295, 1982. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.1982.tb05249.x
  20. Millstein PL, Nathanson D. Effect of eugenol and eugenol cements on cured composite resin. J Prosthet Dent 50:211-215, 1983. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(83)90016-1
  21. Powell TL, Huget EF. Effects of cements and eugenol on properties of a visible light-cured composite. Pediatr Dent 15:104-107, 1993.
  22. Woody TL, Davis RD. The effect of eugenol containing and eugenol-free temporary cements on microleakage in resin bonded restorations. Oper Dent 17:175-180, 1992.
  23. Stangel I. Nathanson D, Hsu C. Shear strength of the composite bond to etched porcelain. J Dent Res 66:1460-1465, 1987. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345870660091001
  24. Soderholm K-JM. Correlation of in vivo and in vitro performance of adhesive materials : A report of the ASC MD 156 task group on test methods for adhesion of restorative materials. Dent Mater 7:74-83, 1991. https://doi.org/10.1016/0109-5641(91)90049-5
  25. Swift EJ, Perdigao J, Heymann HO. Bonding to enamel and dentin : A brief history and state of the art. Quintessence Int 26:95-110, 1995.
  26. Sano H, Shono T, Sonoda H, Takatsu T, Ciucchi B, Carvalho R, Pashley DH. Relationship between surface area for adhesion and tensile bond strength-evaluation of a microtensile bond test. Dent Mater 10:236-240, 1994. https://doi.org/10.1016/0109-5641(94)90067-1
  27. Gwinnett AJ, Kanca J. Micromorphology of the bonded dentine interface and its relationship to bond strength. Am J Dent 5:73-77, 1992.
  28. Sano H, Takatsu T, Ciucchi B, Horner JA, Matthews WG, Pashley DH. Nanoleakage: leakage within the hybrid layer. Oper Dent 20:18-25, 1995.
  29. Cox CF. Evaluation and treatment of bacterial microleakage. Am J Dent 7:293-295, 1994.
  30. Paul SJ, Scharer P. Effect of provisional cements on the shear bond strength of various dentin bonding agents. J Oral Rehabil 24:8-14, 19. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.1997.00484.x
  31. Christensen GJ. Resin cements and postoperative sensitivity. J Am Dent Assoc 131:1197-1199, 2000. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2000.0357
  32. Sorensen JA, Munksgaard EC, Odont D. Relative gap formation adjacent to ceramic inlays with combination of resin cements and dentine bonding agents. J Prosthet Dent 76:472-476, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(96)90003-7
  33. Magne P, Douglas WH. Porcelain veneers : dentin bonding optimization and biomimetic recovery of the crown. Int J Prosthodont 12:111-121, 1999.
  34. Kanca J. Resin bonding to wet substrates I-bonding to dentin. Quintessence Int 23:39-41, 1992.
  35. Tay FR, Gwinnett JA, Wei SH. Micromorphological spectrum from over drying to over-wetting acid conditioned dentin in water-free acetone-based single bottle primer/adhesives. Dent Mater 12:236-244, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(96)80029-7
  36. Nakabayashi N, Kojima K, Masuhara E. The promotion of adhesion by the infiltration of monomers into tooth substrates. J Biomed Mater Res 16:265-273, 1982. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820160307
  37. Ganss C, Jung M. Effect of eugenol- containing temporary cements on bond strength of composite to dentin. Oper Dent 23:55-62, 1998.
  38. Yoshiyama M, Carvalho RM, Sano H. Horner JA, Brewer PD, Pashley DH. Regional bond strengths of resins to human root dentine. J Dent 24:435-442, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-5712(95)00102-6
  39. Pashley DH, Pashley EL. Dentin permeability and restorative dentistry : a status report for the American Journal of Dentistry. Am J Dent 4:5-9, 1991.