Title: Testing Bond Strength, a Review of the Literature
Authors: De Munck, Jan
Mine, Atsushi
Poitevin, André
Van Ende, Annelies
Van Meerbeek, Bart #
Issue Date: Oct-2009
Host Document: Academy of Dental Materials, Proceedings 2009
Conference: Academy of Dental Materials Annual Meeting location:Portland, Oregon, USA date:October 29-31, 2009
Abstract: Objectives: Worldwide bond strength tests are used to evaluate bonding
effectiveness of different adhesive techniques. The purpose of this study was to
systematically collect these data to identify the primary parameters that affect the
outcome of bond strength tests, and to attempt to disclose trends in adhesive
performance of the different adhesive approaches today available.
Materials and Methods: 871 studies were identified by entering the search term
‘dentin bond strength AND "published last 5 years"[Filter]’ in PubMed, and
subsequently inserted in a custom-made database. Only studies containing data
on the adhesion of several commercial adhesives to dentin were retained. Besides
the actual bond strength data (mean, SD, n and number of pre-testing failures),
other relevant parameters were recorded with regard to the substrate bonded to,
surface preparation, storage conditions, potential artificial ageing, alternative
application techniques, type of composite used, and some specific test conditions.
Results: Up to now, 328 studies have been evaluated and from 110 studies
relevant data were extracted, yielding 961 individual bond strength tests. A
relatively simple statistical general linear model was generated to identify relevant
parameters. The bond strength test used most often was the micro-tensile bond
strength test (µTBS: 67%), followed by the macro-shear (MSB: 18%), micro-shear
(µSB: 9%), macro-tensile (MTB: 4%) and push-out bond strength test (PoB: 2%).
For further analysis, the push-out bond strengths and the adhesives that had been
tested in less than 3 studies were excluded. From the remaining data, 56%
involved any kind of experimental parameter as artificial aging, altered application
techniques, etc. The actual bond strength obtained was significantly affected by
the type of test employed (on average 29.2 and 18.1 MPa for µTBS and MSB
respectively, p<0.0001). Significant differences were also observed for the
different adhesive classes (pooled data): three-step etch&rinse (mean ± 95%
confidence interval: 36.9 ± 5.8, n=44;), two-step etch&rinse (26.3 ± 1.7, n=178),
two-step self-etch (32.3 ± 2, n=163) and one-step self-etch adhesives (23.6 ± 1.4,
n=253). Also between individual adhesives substantial differences were observed
in the mean bond strengths, ranging from 49 MPa (OptiBond Fl, Kerr) to 10 MPa
(Futurabond NR, Voco). About 36% of the groups involved any kind of artificial
aging and this affected the outcome significantly (22.5 MPa versus 27 MPa for the
control specimens, p<0.001). Another remarkable parameter was the flexural
modulus of the composite used; a lower flexural modulus was significantly
correlated with lower bond strengths.
Conclusions: Although preliminary, this systematic analysis of the bond strength
data in literature revealed some key parameters that affect the outcome of bond
strength tests.
Publication status: published
KU Leuven publication type: IC
Appears in Collections:Clinical Residents Dentistry
Biomaterials - BIOMAT
Department of Oral Health Sciences - miscellaneous
# (joint) last author

Files in This Item:
File Description Status SizeFormat
PORTLAND_2009_JDM_final_web.pdfposter - pdf Published 3568KbAdobe PDFView/Open


All items in Lirias are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.