In Vitro Study assesses shear bond strength in premolars using MTA and ApaCal ART liners, indicating superior adhesion with eighth-generation adhesives.
Aim:The current investigation sought to assess the shear bond strength (SBS) between two distinct liners and a universal bonding agent.Materials and methods: Eighty extracted premolars were cleaned using a periodontal scaler and stored in 0.9% saline until required.Teeth were cut to expose the dentinal surface at a depth of 1 mm using a straight fissure bur.For uniformity, grooves were marked at 1 mm.Then, use a straight fissure bur to create a 1.5 3 3 mm hollow on the surface.Apply the mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) to 40 premolar cavities using an amalgam carrier.Apply the ApaCal ART to 40 premolar cavities, then allow it to cure for 40 seconds.Group IA consisted of 10 premolars bonded with MTA liner using a seventh-generation bonding agent; group IB consisted of 10 premolars bonded with ApaCal ART liner using a seventh-generation bonding agent; group IIA consisted of 10 premolars bonded with MTA liner using an eighth-generation bonding agent; and group IIB consisted of 10 premolars bonded with ApaCal ART liner using an eighth-generation bonding agent.Composite was applied to each sample's cavity lining using a two-layer incremental approach after the adhesive was applied.Each layer was cured.Shear bond strength was assessed by using a universal testing machine.Results: Group IIA had the greatest SBS value (14.9780MPa), and group IB had the least SBS value (12.3110MPa).Overall analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed significant differences (p = 0.036), though pairwise comparisons were not statistically significant. Conclusion:In both bioactive materials, the eighth-generation adhesives are superior to the seventh-generation adhesives, with MTA exhibiting greater values.Clinical significance: The lifespan and durability of the repair are guaranteed by a strong enough adhesion between the adhesive system and the liner.Stronger adhesion, which can enhance the stability of the restorative material, prevent marginal gaps, and reduce microleakage.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kurian et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: