Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The objective of this study is to evaluate the dentin microtensile bond strength of total etching and self-etch dental adhesives which have 10-MDP as a functional monomer used in class V cavity restoration. This in vitro study evaluates the dentin microtensile bond strength at the gingival margin of Class V cavities which were bonded with various 10-MDP contained dental adhesives for the resin composite restorations. For this purpose, 45 freshly extracted sound human upper premolars were prepared with water-cooled high-speed hand piece and cylindrical diamond bur [D8] at cemento-enamel junction on buccal surface of the teeth. The occlusal margin of cavity is located on enamel, and the gingival margin is located on cementum. The prepared teeth were randomly assigned into three groups of ifteen teeth. Microtensile bond strength (TBS) was recorded, the failure patterns were classiied, and the micromorphology of resin-dentine interfaces was evaluated. Results were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test ( = 0.05). There were statistically signiicant higher (p = 0.019) TBS value of SBU (10.76644.2676 MPa) than CTS value (6.42574.1786 MPa) but no statistically signiicant difference (p > 0.05) between SBU (10.76644.2676 MPa) and CSE (9.32573.6572 MPa), and between CSE (9.32573.6572 MPa) and CTS (6.42574.1786 MPa) were found. The adhesive failure between resin-dentin interfaces of three adhesive systems accounted for 75.33% of the total number of fractures and no cohesive failures were found in dentin. Considering the limitations of this in vitro study, some 2-step total etching dental adhesive which has 10-MDP as a functional monomer may be capable of producing higher microtensile bond strengths than 1-step self-etch dental adhesive which has 10-MDP as a functional monomer.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chomcheoy et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: