Influence of photo-curing distance on bond strength and nanoleakage of self-etching adhesive bonds to enamel and dentin

CT Pimenta de Araújo, LT Prieto, AF Lima… - Acta Odontologica …, 2014 - Taylor & Francis
CT Pimenta de Araújo, LT Prieto, AF Lima, EJ Souza-Junior, CTS Dias, LAMS Paulillo
Acta Odontologica Scandinavica, 2014Taylor & Francis
Objectives. To assess the influence of light-curing unit tip distance on the microtensile bond
strength (μTBS) and nanoleakage of self-etching adhesives to enamel and dentin. Materials
and methods. Flat buccal surfaces were prepared on 198 bovine incisors. The teeth were
randomly assigned into nine groups for μTBS (n= 8) and nanoleakage (n= 3) testing
according to the adhesive system (Clearfil Protect Bond, Clearfil Tri-S Bond or One Up Bond
F Plus) and distance from the light-curing tip (0, 3 or 6 mm). The bonded samples were …
Abstract
Objectives
To assess the influence of light-curing unit tip distance on the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) and nanoleakage of self-etching adhesives to enamel and dentin.
Materials and methods
Flat buccal surfaces were prepared on 198 bovine incisors. The teeth were randomly assigned into nine groups for μTBS (n = 8) and nanoleakage (n = 3) testing according to the adhesive system (Clearfil Protect Bond, Clearfil Tri-S Bond or One Up Bond F Plus) and distance from the light-curing tip (0, 3 or 6 mm). The bonded samples were tested in tension (0.5 mm/min) and nanoleakage was analyzed using SEM.
Results
Clearfil Protect Bond exhibited the highest tensile strength on both enamel and dentin. Leakage was higher in samples exposed at a distance of 6 mm on enamel and 0 mm on dentin. One Up Bond F Plus experienced the greatest amount of nanoleakage on both substrates.
Conclusions
Light-curing unit distance did not influence the μTBS of the adhesives, but nanoleakage increased on enamel samples when photoactivation occurred at a distance of 6 mm.
Taylor & Francis Online
以上显示的是最相近的搜索结果。 查看全部搜索结果