No-primer adhesive vs. self-adhesive resin: bonding strength following LED curing
Purpose The goal of this study was to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) and failure modes of three different adhesive resins following the use of two different dental curing light units. Methods A total of 160 human premolars were randomly divided into four groups ( N = 40 for each): group 1, T...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of orofacial orthopedics 2022-03, Vol.83 (2), p.141-150 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 150 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 141 |
| container_title | Journal of orofacial orthopedics |
| container_volume | 83 |
| creator | Atik, Ezgi Kızılırmak, Mustafa Akcan, Cenk Ahmet Taner, Tülin |
| description | Purpose
The goal of this study was to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) and failure modes of three different adhesive resins following the use of two different dental curing light units.
Methods
A total of 160 human premolars were randomly divided into four groups (
N
= 40 for each): group 1, Transbond™ XT (3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) adhesive paste; group 2, Heliosit Orthodontic paste with no primer; group 3, Maxcem Elite (Kerr, Orange, CA, USA) self-adhesive resin with prior etching; group 4, Maxcem Elite self-adhesive resin with no etching. Each group was further divided into 2 subgroups: half (named “a”) were cured with VALO LED (Ultradent Products, South Jordan, UT, USA), and the other half (named “b”) with the Elipar LED unit (3M Unitek LED, Monrovia, CA, USA). The brackets were submitted to SBS testing 24 h after bonding. Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) scores and bonding time were also measured. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Kruskal–Wallis tests were used for statistical analysis.
Results
No significant differences in SBS were observed when comparing the two different LED devices within the same bonding material. The mean SBS of group 1 was significantly higher compared to groups 2, 3, and 4 (
p
|
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00056-021-00340-z |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2562237839</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2562237839</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c347t-f2dca2f2fd1546da591425e49d152a7903fac6bec1154f47bdf9a93a7a9d6ecd3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMlOwzAURS0EoqXwAyxQlmxcPMXB7FApg1SBkGBtOR46KI2LnRTRr8chhSWrN913pXsAOMdojBEqriJCKOcQEQwRogzB3QEYYo5zyAvMDlPPKIM5EXQATmJcdXKG-DEYUMYQEQQPweuzh5uwXNuQKbOwcbm12TaOs2grB_82IZX6Jit9bZb1PItNsPW8WWTOV5X_7Faz6V2m25DaU3DkVBXt2b6OwPv99G3yCGcvD0-T2xnUlBUNdMRoRRxxBueMG5ULzEhumUgzUYVA1CnNS6txujtWlMYJJagqlDDcakNH4LL33QT_0drYyPUyaltVqra-jZLknBBaXFORpKSX6uBjDNbJLrIKXxIj2aGUPUqZUMoflHKXni72_m25tubv5ZddEtBeEDddbhvkyrehTpn_s_0GLYh_5w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2562237839</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>No-primer adhesive vs. self-adhesive resin: bonding strength following LED curing</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><creator>Atik, Ezgi ; Kızılırmak, Mustafa ; Akcan, Cenk Ahmet ; Taner, Tülin</creator><creatorcontrib>Atik, Ezgi ; Kızılırmak, Mustafa ; Akcan, Cenk Ahmet ; Taner, Tülin</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
The goal of this study was to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) and failure modes of three different adhesive resins following the use of two different dental curing light units.
Methods
A total of 160 human premolars were randomly divided into four groups (
N
= 40 for each): group 1, Transbond™ XT (3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) adhesive paste; group 2, Heliosit Orthodontic paste with no primer; group 3, Maxcem Elite (Kerr, Orange, CA, USA) self-adhesive resin with prior etching; group 4, Maxcem Elite self-adhesive resin with no etching. Each group was further divided into 2 subgroups: half (named “a”) were cured with VALO LED (Ultradent Products, South Jordan, UT, USA), and the other half (named “b”) with the Elipar LED unit (3M Unitek LED, Monrovia, CA, USA). The brackets were submitted to SBS testing 24 h after bonding. Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) scores and bonding time were also measured. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Kruskal–Wallis tests were used for statistical analysis.
Results
No significant differences in SBS were observed when comparing the two different LED devices within the same bonding material. The mean SBS of group 1 was significantly higher compared to groups 2, 3, and 4 (
p
< 0.001). Mean SBS values of groups 2 and 3 were significantly higher than that of group 4 (
p
< 0.001). ARI scores were significantly different in groups 4a and 4b compared to the other groups (
p
< 0.05). Group 4a showed significantly lower bonding time/tooth compared to the other groups except to groups 3a and 4b (
p
< 0.001).
Conclusions
Decreasing curing time using high-power LED device did not significantly affect SBS. However, the composite type did affect SBS.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1434-5293</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1615-6714</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00056-021-00340-z</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34402921</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Heidelberg: Springer Medizin</publisher><subject>Acid Etching, Dental ; Dental Bonding ; Dental Cements ; Dental Stress Analysis ; Dentistry ; Humans ; Materials Testing ; Medicine ; Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery ; Original Article ; Orthodontic Brackets ; Resin Cements - chemistry ; Shear Strength ; Stress, Mechanical ; Surface Properties</subject><ispartof>Journal of orofacial orthopedics, 2022-03, Vol.83 (2), p.141-150</ispartof><rights>Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2021</rights><rights>2021. Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c347t-f2dca2f2fd1546da591425e49d152a7903fac6bec1154f47bdf9a93a7a9d6ecd3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c347t-f2dca2f2fd1546da591425e49d152a7903fac6bec1154f47bdf9a93a7a9d6ecd3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-1358-0633</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00056-021-00340-z$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00056-021-00340-z$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34402921$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Atik, Ezgi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kızılırmak, Mustafa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Akcan, Cenk Ahmet</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taner, Tülin</creatorcontrib><title>No-primer adhesive vs. self-adhesive resin: bonding strength following LED curing</title><title>Journal of orofacial orthopedics</title><addtitle>J Orofac Orthop</addtitle><addtitle>J Orofac Orthop</addtitle><description>Purpose
The goal of this study was to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) and failure modes of three different adhesive resins following the use of two different dental curing light units.
Methods
A total of 160 human premolars were randomly divided into four groups (
N
= 40 for each): group 1, Transbond™ XT (3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) adhesive paste; group 2, Heliosit Orthodontic paste with no primer; group 3, Maxcem Elite (Kerr, Orange, CA, USA) self-adhesive resin with prior etching; group 4, Maxcem Elite self-adhesive resin with no etching. Each group was further divided into 2 subgroups: half (named “a”) were cured with VALO LED (Ultradent Products, South Jordan, UT, USA), and the other half (named “b”) with the Elipar LED unit (3M Unitek LED, Monrovia, CA, USA). The brackets were submitted to SBS testing 24 h after bonding. Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) scores and bonding time were also measured. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Kruskal–Wallis tests were used for statistical analysis.
Results
No significant differences in SBS were observed when comparing the two different LED devices within the same bonding material. The mean SBS of group 1 was significantly higher compared to groups 2, 3, and 4 (
p
< 0.001). Mean SBS values of groups 2 and 3 were significantly higher than that of group 4 (
p
< 0.001). ARI scores were significantly different in groups 4a and 4b compared to the other groups (
p
< 0.05). Group 4a showed significantly lower bonding time/tooth compared to the other groups except to groups 3a and 4b (
p
< 0.001).
Conclusions
Decreasing curing time using high-power LED device did not significantly affect SBS. However, the composite type did affect SBS.</description><subject>Acid Etching, Dental</subject><subject>Dental Bonding</subject><subject>Dental Cements</subject><subject>Dental Stress Analysis</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Materials Testing</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Orthodontic Brackets</subject><subject>Resin Cements - chemistry</subject><subject>Shear Strength</subject><subject>Stress, Mechanical</subject><subject>Surface Properties</subject><issn>1434-5293</issn><issn>1615-6714</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kMlOwzAURS0EoqXwAyxQlmxcPMXB7FApg1SBkGBtOR46KI2LnRTRr8chhSWrN913pXsAOMdojBEqriJCKOcQEQwRogzB3QEYYo5zyAvMDlPPKIM5EXQATmJcdXKG-DEYUMYQEQQPweuzh5uwXNuQKbOwcbm12TaOs2grB_82IZX6Jit9bZb1PItNsPW8WWTOV5X_7Faz6V2m25DaU3DkVBXt2b6OwPv99G3yCGcvD0-T2xnUlBUNdMRoRRxxBueMG5ULzEhumUgzUYVA1CnNS6txujtWlMYJJagqlDDcakNH4LL33QT_0drYyPUyaltVqra-jZLknBBaXFORpKSX6uBjDNbJLrIKXxIj2aGUPUqZUMoflHKXni72_m25tubv5ZddEtBeEDddbhvkyrehTpn_s_0GLYh_5w</recordid><startdate>20220301</startdate><enddate>20220301</enddate><creator>Atik, Ezgi</creator><creator>Kızılırmak, Mustafa</creator><creator>Akcan, Cenk Ahmet</creator><creator>Taner, Tülin</creator><general>Springer Medizin</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1358-0633</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220301</creationdate><title>No-primer adhesive vs. self-adhesive resin: bonding strength following LED curing</title><author>Atik, Ezgi ; Kızılırmak, Mustafa ; Akcan, Cenk Ahmet ; Taner, Tülin</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c347t-f2dca2f2fd1546da591425e49d152a7903fac6bec1154f47bdf9a93a7a9d6ecd3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Acid Etching, Dental</topic><topic>Dental Bonding</topic><topic>Dental Cements</topic><topic>Dental Stress Analysis</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Materials Testing</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Orthodontic Brackets</topic><topic>Resin Cements - chemistry</topic><topic>Shear Strength</topic><topic>Stress, Mechanical</topic><topic>Surface Properties</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Atik, Ezgi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kızılırmak, Mustafa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Akcan, Cenk Ahmet</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taner, Tülin</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of orofacial orthopedics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Atik, Ezgi</au><au>Kızılırmak, Mustafa</au><au>Akcan, Cenk Ahmet</au><au>Taner, Tülin</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>No-primer adhesive vs. self-adhesive resin: bonding strength following LED curing</atitle><jtitle>Journal of orofacial orthopedics</jtitle><stitle>J Orofac Orthop</stitle><addtitle>J Orofac Orthop</addtitle><date>2022-03-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>83</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>141</spage><epage>150</epage><pages>141-150</pages><issn>1434-5293</issn><eissn>1615-6714</eissn><abstract>Purpose
The goal of this study was to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) and failure modes of three different adhesive resins following the use of two different dental curing light units.
Methods
A total of 160 human premolars were randomly divided into four groups (
N
= 40 for each): group 1, Transbond™ XT (3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) adhesive paste; group 2, Heliosit Orthodontic paste with no primer; group 3, Maxcem Elite (Kerr, Orange, CA, USA) self-adhesive resin with prior etching; group 4, Maxcem Elite self-adhesive resin with no etching. Each group was further divided into 2 subgroups: half (named “a”) were cured with VALO LED (Ultradent Products, South Jordan, UT, USA), and the other half (named “b”) with the Elipar LED unit (3M Unitek LED, Monrovia, CA, USA). The brackets were submitted to SBS testing 24 h after bonding. Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) scores and bonding time were also measured. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Kruskal–Wallis tests were used for statistical analysis.
Results
No significant differences in SBS were observed when comparing the two different LED devices within the same bonding material. The mean SBS of group 1 was significantly higher compared to groups 2, 3, and 4 (
p
< 0.001). Mean SBS values of groups 2 and 3 were significantly higher than that of group 4 (
p
< 0.001). ARI scores were significantly different in groups 4a and 4b compared to the other groups (
p
< 0.05). Group 4a showed significantly lower bonding time/tooth compared to the other groups except to groups 3a and 4b (
p
< 0.001).
Conclusions
Decreasing curing time using high-power LED device did not significantly affect SBS. However, the composite type did affect SBS.</abstract><cop>Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Medizin</pub><pmid>34402921</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00056-021-00340-z</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1358-0633</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1434-5293 |
| ispartof | Journal of orofacial orthopedics, 2022-03, Vol.83 (2), p.141-150 |
| issn | 1434-5293 1615-6714 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2562237839 |
| source | MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals |
| subjects | Acid Etching, Dental Dental Bonding Dental Cements Dental Stress Analysis Dentistry Humans Materials Testing Medicine Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Original Article Orthodontic Brackets Resin Cements - chemistry Shear Strength Stress, Mechanical Surface Properties |
| title | No-primer adhesive vs. self-adhesive resin: bonding strength following LED curing |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-19T05%3A38%3A39IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=No-primer%20adhesive%20vs.%20self-adhesive%20resin:%20bonding%20strength%20following%20LED%20curing&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20orofacial%20orthopedics&rft.au=Atik,%20Ezgi&rft.date=2022-03-01&rft.volume=83&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=141&rft.epage=150&rft.pages=141-150&rft.issn=1434-5293&rft.eissn=1615-6714&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00056-021-00340-z&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2562237839%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2562237839&rft_id=info:pmid/34402921&rfr_iscdi=true |