PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 1631270

The dentinal surface: its influence on dentinal adhesion. 2.

J D Eick·S J Robinson·C M Cobb·R P Chappell·P Spencer
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The first paper in this series presented a categorization of dentinal adhesive systems that was organized roughly according to chronology, chemistry, and shear bond strength values. Category I dentinal adhesives demonstrate the lowest shear bond strength values, approximately 5 to 7 MPa. Category II dentinal adhesives, including experimental ferric and aluminum oxalate pretreatments and two commercial products, demonstrate shear bond strength values between 8 and 14 MPa. This second category of dentinal adhesives is the subject of this paper. An attempt is made to draw a parallel between the penetrative ability of the adhesive (the wettability of the dentinal substrate) and the efficacy of the adhesive bond as determined by shear bond strength values. Category III dentinal adhesives will be discussed in another paper.

Explore related subjects

AdhesivesDental BondingDental CementsDentinFerric CompoundsHumansMaterials TestingMethacrylatesMolar, ThirdOxalatesSurface PropertiesTensile StrengthJournal ArticleResearch Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J D Eick, S J Robinson, C M Cobb, R P Chappell, P Spencer. 1992. The dentinal surface: its influence on dentinal adhesion. 2.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1631270/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Healing substrates with mobile, particle-filled microcapsules: designing a 'repair and go' system.

We model the rolling motion of a fluid-driven, particle-filled microcapsule along a heterogeneous, adhesive substrate to determine how the release of the encapsulated nanoparticles can be harnessed to repair damage on the underlying surface. We integrate the lattice Boltzmann model for hydrodynamics and the lattice spring model for the micromechanics of elastic solids to capture the interactions between the elastic shell of the microcapsule and the surrounding fluids. A Brownian dynamics model is used to simulate the release of nanoparticles from the capsule and their diffusion into the surrounding solution. We focus on a substrate that contains a damaged region (e.g. a crack or eroded surface coating), which prevents the otherwise mobile capsule from rolling along the surface. We isolate conditions where nanoparticles released from the arrested capsule can repair the damage and thereby enable the capsules to again move along the substrate. Through these studies, we establish guidelines for designing particle-filled microcapsules that perform a 'repair and go' function and thus, can be utilized to repair damage in microchannels and microfluidic devices.

Adhesives↗
PubMed2007

Bonding to ground versus unground enamel in fluorosed teeth.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of grinding on the bonding effectiveness of a self-etch and an etch-and-rinse adhesive to fluorosed enamel. METHODS: The teeth were classified using the Thylstrup and Fejerskov index (TFI). Fluorosed teeth (TFI=5) obtained from Isparta (Turkey) and control teeth (TFI=0) obtained from Leuven (Belgium) were used. Using a depth-marking diamond bur, 0.3mm of enamel was removed from mid-buccal and mid-palatal/lingual surfaces of the teeth, whereas the area adjacent to the ground area was left unprepared. A two-step self-etch (Clearfil Protect Bond, Kuraray) and a three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (Optibond FL, Kerr) were used to bond the resin composite to the ground and unground enamel. Rectangular micro-specimens were prepared using the slow-speed diamond saw and tested in tensile to determine the micro-tensile bond strength (microTBS). RESULTS: The microTBS to unground fluorosed enamel was significantly lower than to ground fluorosed enamel for Clearfil Protect Bond (15.8+/-15.2 and 45.0+/-12.4MPa, p<0.0001) and for Optibond FL (35.5+/-21.4 and 50.5+/-12.3MPa, p<0.05), respectively. In control teeth, Clearfil Protect Bond bonded better to ground enamel (p<0.01), whereas OptiBond FL exhibited a similar bonding effectiveness to ground and unground enamel (p=0.0634). SIGNIFICANCE: Preparation of enamel improved the resin-enamel bond strength in fluorosed teeth. The bonding effectiveness to unground enamel was lower in fluorosed teeth than in control teeth for the self-etch adhesive tested.

Adhesives↗