Comparison of dynamic versus static bond strength testing

Objectives : To evaluate the fatigue resistance of adhesives bonded to dentin, in comparison to their micro-tensile bond strength (μTBS).

Materials and methods : The bonding effectiveness of three adhesives (3-step etch-and-rinse adhesive or 3-E&RA OptiBond FL, 2-step self-etch adhesive or 2-SEA Clearfil SE, and 1-step self-etch adhesive or 1-SEA G-Bond) was measured by means of a micro-tensile fatigue resistance (μTFR) and μTBS protocol. Preparation and test set-up of the micro-specimens for both μTFR and μTBS were identical. In fatigue, specimens were tested in a wide range of selected loads at 2 Hz and at 10 Hz until failure or until 10 4 cycles were reached. At 2 Hz, the μTFR was measured after 1 week and 3 months of water storage. The μTFR was determined (in MPa) using a logistic regression model. Two-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD multiple comparisons test were used to determine statistical differences in μTBS.

Results :

Adhesive μTBS μTFR 10 Hz 1 week Statistics frequency μTFR 2 Hz 1 week Statistics storage μTFR 2 Hz 3 months
3-E&RA 51.0 ± 17.6 ( n = 49) 20.5 ( n = 50) p = 0.765 21.3 ( n = 31) p = 0.3799 19.7 ( n = 34)
2-SEA 43.7 ± 14.3 ( n = 75) 18.4 ( n = 44) p = 0.4566 19.6 ( n = 24) p = 0.0428 14.2 ( n = 33)
1-SEA 28.0 ± 15.3 ( n = 58) 11.7 ( n = 41) p = 0.0158 15.0 ( n = 26) p = 0.0015 8.4 ( n = 43)
Statistics adhesive p < 0.0001 p = 0.0011 p = 0.0539 p = 0.002
Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Nov 30, 2017 | Posted by in Dental Materials | Comments Off on Comparison of dynamic versus static bond strength testing
Premium Wordpress Themes by UFO Themes