Evaluating The Effect of pH of Dentin Bonding Agents on Dentin in Relation to the Push-Out Bond Strength of Composites in Class I Cavities in-vitro

  • Sofia Ganai
  • S. Vijay Singh
  • Saurabh Gupta
  • Poonam Bogra
Keywords: Bonding agents, Dentin, Strength, in-vitro

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Today, the popularity of amalgam as restorative material has decreased due to poor esthetic characteristics and mercury contamination with composite resin materials becoming a choice among the both dentists and patients.
AIM: The objective of this in-vitro study was to evaluate the effect of pH of dentin bonding agents (Adper Easy Bond and Xeno V) on dentin in relation to push out bond strength of composite restored with Filtek bulk fill posterior restorative composites.
MATERIALS AND METHOD: Sixty caries free human molars with no cracks or previous restorations were used for investigation. Standard box-type Class-I Cavities of 3.5 mm x 3.5 mm and depth of 4 mm were prepared on the occlusal surface of the molars. Teeth were randomly divided into 2 groups namely Group A, Group B of 30 teeth each, according to the dentin adhesives applied i.e Adper Easy bond and Xeno V. Two bonding agents with different pH were selected for the study. One was Adper Easy Bond with Ultra mild pH of 2.7. Other was Xeno V Self etch with strong pH of <1.3. Push-out test was performed by placing specimens within a centralizing ring to ensure a centered application of the load, resting on another ring, with a central hole slightly larger than the restoration diameter. The test was performed with a universal Testing Machine to express bond strength in mega pascals (MPa), load value in Newton (N). After testing the push-out bond strength, the samples were analyzed under a stereomicroscope.
RESULTS: Adper Easy bond with an ultra mild pH 2.7 is better as compared to Xeno V Self etch with strong pH of <1.3.The most common mode of failure observed with Adper was mixed fracture and cohesive dentin fracture, while in Xeno V, adhesive failure between resin and dentin and cohesive resin fracture was observed. The mean maximum force was significantly more among Adper compared to Xeno V.
CONCLUSION: Comparison of dentin bonding agents in this in vitro study revealed that the push out bond strength of Adper Easy performed better than Xeno V.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Sofia Ganai

MDS, (Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics), Consultant Dental Practitioner, Jammu, India

S. Vijay Singh

Professor and Head, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, NEIGRIHMS, Shillong, Meghalaya

Saurabh Gupta

Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, DAV Dental College and Hospital, Yamunanagar, Haryana

Poonam Bogra

Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, DAV Dental College and Hospital, Yamunanagar, Haryana

References

Dewaele M, Asmussen E, Devaux J, Leloup G. Class II restorations: influence of a liner with rubbery qualities on the occurrence and size of cervical gaps. Eur J Oral Sci. 2006;114(6):534-41.

Divakar KP, Regish KM, Bawa S. Polymerization Shrinkage of Composites Resin: A New Perspective to an old problem- A review. International Journal of Healthcare and Pharmaceutical Research 2014;(3):25-8.

Jang JH, Park SH, Hwang IN. Polymerization Shrinkage and Depth of Cure of Bulk-Fill Resin Composites and Highly Filled Flowable Resin. Oper Dent. 2015;40(2):172-80. https://doi.org/10.2341/13-307-L

Eldarrat AH, High AS, Kale GM. Investigated age realted changes in ac-impedance spectroscopy studies of normal human dentin: further investigations J Master Sci; Mater Med. 2010;21:45-51.

Ellen KW. Adsorption theory of adhesión. Theories of adhesión. In: Packham D.E. Handbook of Adhesión, ed 1. Essex, England: Longman, 1992:39:473.

Van Meerbeek B, Vargas S, Inoue S, Yoshida Y, Peumans M and Lambrechts P. Adhesives and cements to promote preservation dentistry, Oper Dent. 2001; 26: S119–S144.

Van Meerbeek B, J. De Munck, Y. Yoshida, S. Inoue, M. Vargas and P. Vijay. Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges, Oper Dent. 2003; 28: 215–35.

Eick JD, Gwinett AJ, Pashley DH, Robinson SJ. Current concepts on adhesion to dentin. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 1997; 8(3):306-35.

Davidson CL, de Gee AJ, Feilzer A. The competition between the composite dentin bond strength and the polymerization contraction stress. J Dent Res. 1984; 63(12):1396-9.

Swift EJ, Perdigao J, Heymann OH. Bonding to enamel and dentin: A brief history and state of the art. Quintessence Int. 1995; 34:849-53.

Carrigan PJ, Morse DR, Furst ML, Sinai IH. Scanning electron microscopic evaluation of human dentinal tubules According to Age and location. Journal of Endo. 1984;10(8):359-63.

Nikhil V, Singh V, Chaudhry S. Comparative evaluation of bond strength of three contemporary self-etch adhesives: An ex-vivo study. Contemporary Clinical Dentistry 2013;2(2):94-7.

Junior M, Carneiro K, Lobato M, Souza P, Goes M. Adhesive systems: important aspect related to their composition and clinical use. J Appl Oral Sci. 2010;18(3):207-14.

Fahad F, Majeed R. Fracture resistance of weakened premolars restored with sonically-activated composite, bulk-filled and incrementally - filled composites: A comparative in vitro study. J Bagh College Dentistry. 2014; 26(4):22-7.

CITATION
DOI: 10.26440/IHRJ/0407.10282
Published: 2020-10-24
How to Cite
1.
Sofia Ganai, S. Vijay Singh, Saurabh Gupta, Poonam Bogra. Evaluating The Effect of pH of Dentin Bonding Agents on Dentin in Relation to the Push-Out Bond Strength of Composites in Class I Cavities in-vitro. IHRJ [Internet]. 2020Oct.24 [cited 2020Dec.2];4(7):OR10-OR14. Available from: https://ihrjournal.com/index.php/ihrj/article/view/282