Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Aim:The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and strength of three various dentin-bonding agents used with adhesives on primary teeth. Materials and methods:The study used 80 recently extracted, healthy human maxillary anterior primary teeth that had undergone physiologic resorption, or over-retention.Teeth were cut to expose a flat dentin surface at a depth of 1.5 mm.All samples were divided into four groups (20 samples in each group) as follows: Group I-Control group, Group II-Primary teeth bonding with 6th-generation bonding agent, Group III-Primary teeth bonding with 7th-generation bonding agent, Group IV-Primary teeth bonding with 8th-generation bonding agent.All of the samples' dentinal surfaces were covered with composite resin using a Teflon mold after adhesive had been applied.A universal testing machine (INSTRON) was used to assess the shear bond strength.Data were collected and statistically analyzed.Results: The maximum mean shear bond strength was found in 8th-generation bonding agent (30.76 ± 0.16), followed by 7th-generation bonding agent (26.08 ± 0.21), 6th-generation bonding agent (25.32 ± 0.06), and control group (6.18 ± 0.09).Statistically significant difference was found between the three different bonding agents (p < 0.001). Conclusion:On conclusion, the 8th-generation bonding agent demonstrated a greater shear bond strength to dentin than the 7th and 6th-generation bonding agent.Clinical significance: The emergence of different bonding techniques to the market improves the durability and quality of restorations.An effective bonding to the tooth would also reduce bacterial penetration, marginal microleakage, possibility of pulpal inflammation preserve tooth structure, and postoperative sensitivity by allowing less cavity preparation.
Ghwainem et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: