ITEM METADATA RECORD
Title: Bond strength tests for dental adhesives, a systematic review
Authors: De Munck, Jan
Mine, Atushi
Van Ende, Annelies
Poitevin, André
Van Ende, Annelies
Peumans, Marleen
Van Meerbeek, Bart #
Issue Date: 2010
Host Document: Bond strength tests for dental adhesives, a systematic review
Conference: IAD3 edition:88th General Session location:Barcelona date:14-17 July 2010
Article number: Journal of Dental Research 89B: n°3752
Abstract: Worldwide, bond-strength tests are used to screen bonding effectiveness of dental adhesives. Objectives: To systematically collect bond-strength data, to identify the primary parameters affecting the outcome of bond-strength tests, and to attempt to disclose trends in adhesive performance of different adhesive approaches.

Methods: 1019 studies were identified by entering the search term ‘dentin bond strength AND "published last 5 years"[Filter]' in PubMed. Inclusion criteria were that the bond-strengths of at least 2 commercial adhesives to dentin were measured in combination with a light-curing composite. Of each group also the type of test employed, the bond-strength value in MPa, the number of specimens and standard deviation must be available. Other relevant parameters regarding substrate, preparation, storage conditions, aging, alternative application techniques, composite and some specific test conditions were recorded as well.

Results: From 296 studies, data were extracted, yielding 2140 individual bond-strength tests. The bond-strength test used most often was the micro-tensile bond strength test (µTBS: 61%), followed by the macro-shear (SB: 22%), macro-tensile (8%) micro-shear (6%), and push-out bond strength test (3%). Different tests yielded different outcomes (for example µTBS versus SB: 31.5 versus 15.2 MPa respectively, p=0.0002), so that separate analyses for µTBS and SB are indicated (other tests were excluded). Durability was one of the most tested factors (92 studies), for which 51 studies used extended water storage, 39 thermo-cycling, while 9 used other techniques.

Weighted means of data with and without aging: mean ± 95% conf. interval (n)
self-etch
etch&rinse

1-step
2-step
2-step
3-step

micro-tensile bond strength
control
27.3 ± 1.7 (192)C
37.3 ± 1.8 (188)B
35.9 ± 1.6 (202)B
43.4 ± 3.3 (62)A

aging
18.8 ± 1.8 (110)D
31.2 ± 2.3 (101)C
27.2 ± 1.8 (182)C
32.2 ± 2.7 (43)B,C

macro-shear bond strength
control
13.9 ± 1.1 (129)b
18.2 ± 1.6 (65)a
16.4 ± 1.6 (68)a,b
15 ± 2.7 (20) a,b

aging
14.2 ± 2.3 (31) a,b
14.7 ± 2.6 (27) a,b
13.6 ± 1.8 (62)b
10.8 ± 15.4 (4) a,b

groups with the same superscripts are statistically not significantly different (Tukey HSD, p< 0.05)



This analysis suggests that µTBS appears more discriminative. Regarding adhesive approaches, one-step adhesives showed the lowest and least-stable bond-strengths.

Conclusions: This systematic analysis identified several key parameters that affect bond-strength data. Apart from the adhesive itself, the following factors significantly contributed to our statistical model: adhesive classification, artificial aging (by water storage, not by thermo-cycling), research center, substrate preparation and flexural modulus of the composite.

































Worldwide, bond-strength tests are used to screen bonding effectiveness of dental adhesives. Objectives: To systematically collect bond-strength data, to identify the primary parameters affecting the outcome of bond-strength tests, and to attempt to disclose trends in adhesive performance of different adhesive approaches.

Methods: 1019 studies were identified by entering the search term ‘dentin bond strength AND "published last 5 years"[Filter]' in PubMed. Inclusion criteria were that the bond-strengths of at least 2 commercial adhesives to dentin were measured in combination with a light-curing composite. Of each group also the type of test employed, the bond-strength value in MPa, the number of specimens and standard deviation must be available. Other relevant parameters regarding substrate, preparation, storage conditions, aging, alternative application techniques, composite and some specific test conditions were recorded as well.

Results: From 296 studies, data were extracted, yielding 2140 individual bond-strength tests. The bond-strength test used most often was the micro-tensile bond strength test (µTBS: 61%), followed by the macro-shear (SB: 22%), macro-tensile (8%) micro-shear (6%), and push-out bond strength test (3%). Different tests yielded different outcomes (for example µTBS versus SB: 31.5 versus 15.2 MPa respectively, p=0.0002), so that separate analyses for µTBS and SB are indicated (other tests were excluded). Durability was one of the most tested factors (92 studies), for which 51 studies used extended water storage, 39 thermo-cycling, while 9 used other techniques.

Weighted means of data with and without aging: mean ± 95% conf. interval (n)
self-etch
etch&rinse

1-step
2-step
2-step
3-step

micro-tensile bond strength
control
27.3 ± 1.7 (192)C
37.3 ± 1.8 (188)B
35.9 ± 1.6 (202)B
43.4 ± 3.3 (62)A

aging
18.8 ± 1.8 (110)D
31.2 ± 2.3 (101)C
27.2 ± 1.8 (182)C
32.2 ± 2.7 (43)B,C

macro-shear bond strength
control
13.9 ± 1.1 (129)b
18.2 ± 1.6 (65)a
16.4 ± 1.6 (68)a,b
15 ± 2.7 (20) a,b

aging
14.2 ± 2.3 (31) a,b
14.7 ± 2.6 (27) a,b
13.6 ± 1.8 (62)b
10.8 ± 15.4 (4) a,b

groups with the same superscripts are statistically not significantly different (Tukey HSD, p< 0.05)



This analysis suggests that µTBS appears more discriminative. Regarding adhesive approaches, one-step adhesives showed the lowest and least-stable bond-strengths.

Conclusions: This systematic analysis identified several key parameters that affect bond-strength data. Apart from the adhesive itself, the following factors significantly contributed to our statistical model: adhesive classification, artificial aging (by water storage, not by thermo-cycling), research center, substrate preparation and flexural modulus of the composite.
Publication status: published
KU Leuven publication type: IC
Appears in Collections:Biomaterials - BIOMAT
Clinical Residents Dentistry
Department of Oral Health Sciences - miscellaneous
# (joint) last author

Files in This Item:

There are no files associated with this item.

Request a copy

 




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