The effects of dentin bonding agent formulas on their polymerization quality, and together with tooth tissues on their microleakage and shear bond strength: an explorative 3-step experiment.
- Author:
Mohmmad ERFAN
1
;
Tahereh Sadat JAFARZADEH-KASHI
;
Malihe GHADIRI
;
Vahid RAKHSHAN
Author Information
- Publication Type:In Vitro ; Original Article
- Keywords: Dentin bonding agents; Polymerization; Degree of conversion; Shear bond strength; Microleakage; Mode of failure; H-NMR spectroscopy; FT-IR spectroscopy
- MeSH: Adhesives; Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate; Dental Enamel; Dentin*; Dentin-Bonding Agents; Polymerization*; Polymers*; Tooth*
- From:The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics 2014;6(5):333-345
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: PURPOSE: Bonding agents (BA) are the crucial weak link of composite restorations. Since the commercial materials' compositions are not disclosed, studies to formulize the optimum ratios of different components are of value. The aim of this study was to find a proper formula of BAs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This explorative experimental in vitro study was composed of 4 different sets of extensive experiments. A commercial BA and 7 experimental formulas were compared in terms of degree of conversion (5 experimental formulas), shear bond strength, mode of failure, and microleakage (3 experimental formulas). Statistical analyses were performed (alpha=.05). The DC of selected formula was tested one year later. RESULTS: The two-way ANOVA indicated a significant difference between the shear bond strength (SBS) of two tissues (dentin vs. enamel, P=.0001) in a way that dentinal bonds were weaker. However, there was no difference between the four materials (P=.283). The adhesive mode of failure was predominant in all groups. No differences between the microleakage of the four materials at occlusal (P=.788) or gingival (P=.508) sites were detected (Kruskal-Wallis). The Mann-Whitney U test showed a significant difference between the microleakage of all materials (3 experimental formulas and a commercial material) together at the occlusal site versus the gingival site (P=.041). CONCLUSION: A formula with 62% bisphenol A-glycidyl methacrylate (Bis-GMA), 37% hydroxy ethyl methacrylate (HEMA), 0.3% camphorquinone (CQ), and 0.7% dimethyl-para-toluidine (DMPT) seems a proper formula for mass production. The microleakage and SBS might be respectively higher and lower on dentin compared to enamel.
