Journal of the American Dental Association
Background: The authors compared the microtensile bond strength of teeth restored with four adhesives at the gingival and pulpal cavity walls of Class II resin-based composite restorations.
Methods: Five pairs of extracted third molars received two Class II preparations/restorations in each tooth. The authors randomly assigned each preparation to one of four adhesive groups: Adper Scotchbond Multipurpose Dental Adhesive (SBMP) (3M ESPE, St. Paul, Minn.), Clearfil SE Bond (CFSE) (Kuraray America, New York City), Prime & Bond NT (PBNT) (Dentsply Caulk, Milford, Del.) and PQ1 (Ultradent, South Jordan, Utah). They restored the teeth and obtained microtensile specimens from each cavity wall. Specimens were tested on a testing machine until they failed.
Results: The mean (+/- standard deviation) bond strengths (in megapascals) were as follows: SBMP (pulpal), 36.4 (17.2); SBMP (gingival), 29.7 (15.3); CFSE (pulpal), 50.8 (13.6); CFSE (gingival), 50.2 (14.0); PBNT (pulpal), 38.3 (19.2); PBNT (gingival), 38.9 (17.7); PQ1 (pulpal), 58.7 (8.7); and PQ1 (gingival), 54.5 (18.5). A two-way analysis of variance found an adhesive effect (P < .001) but no location effect (P >.05).
Conclusions: PQ1 and CFSE performed the best. The results showed no significant difference in microtensile bond strength at the gingival wall versus the pulpal wall.
Clinical implications: Under in vitro conditions, a total-etch ethanol-based adhesive (PQ1) failed cohesively more often than did the other adhesives tested.
Dentin bonding agents, restoration failure, microtensile test
Purk JH, Healy M, Dusevich V, Glaros A, Eick J. In Vitro Microtensile Bond Strength of Four Adhesives Tested at the Gingival and Pulpal Walls of Class II Restorations. Journal of the American Dental Association. 2006; 137(10). doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2006.0054.