Resin–dentin bond strength as related to different surface preparation methods

Sattabanasuk, Vanthana; Vachiramon, Viracha; Qian, Fang; Armstrong, Steven R.

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2007.01.002

« Previous Next »Journal of Dentistry
Volume 35, Issue 6 , Pages 467-475, June 2007

Resin–dentin bond strength as related to different surface preparation methods

Vanthana Sattabanasuk
- Department of Conservative Dentistry and Prosthodontics, Srinakharinwirot University, Bangkok, Thailand
- Corresponding author at: Department of Conservative Dentistry and Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Srinakharinwirot University, Sukhumvit 23, Wattana District, Bangkok 10110, Thailand. Tel.: +66 2 649 5212; fax: +66 2 649 5212.
Viracha Vachiramon
- Department of Conservative Dentistry and Prosthodontics, Srinakharinwirot University, Bangkok, Thailand
- Department of Operative Dentistry, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Fang Qian
- Department of Preventive and Community Dentistry, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Steven R. Armstrong
- Department of Operative Dentistry, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

Received 29 September 2006; received in revised form 4 January 2007; accepted 4 January 2007.

Abstract

Objective

To determine the microtensile bond strength and micromorphological structures on bonding of two adhesives (OptiBond FL and Clearfil SE Bond) to dentin surfaces ground with different preparation methods.

Methods

Extracted human molars were ground flat to expose mid-coronal occlusal dentin surface with one of six preparation methods—P120 grit SiC paper, P400 grit SiC paper, P1200 grit SiC paper, medium grit diamond bur, fine grit diamond bur, and carbide bur. Each of the adhesives was used to bond resin-based composite to the dentin surface. Dumbbell-shaped specimens were fabricated and microtensile bond strengths were determined. The subsequent debond pathway and micromorphological structures of representative dentin surfaces were examined under scanning electron microscopy. ANOVA and survival analyses were performed both assuming independence from and accommodating for within-tooth correlation between specimens.

Results

By ignoring the correlations between specimens, statistical analyses revealed no surface preparation effect on microtensile bond strength for each adhesive system. However, effects of surface preparation method on dentin adhesion of both adhesives were detected when accommodating for any within-tooth specimen correlations. Overall, carbide bur group showed the lowest bond strength for both OptiBond FL and Clearfil SE Bond. Dentin surfaces ground with diamond burs tended to present more compact smear layer than those ground with SiC papers and, subsequently, produced an effect on resin–dentin bond strengths.

Conclusions

The dentin surface preparation method affects smear layer characteristics and dentin surface topography and, therefore affects resin–dentin bond strength. Smear layer denseness, more so than thickness, may compromise bonding efficacy of adhesives, especially of the self-etch systems.

Keywords: Carbide bur, Dentin surface preparation, Diamond bur, Microtensile bond test, Silicon carbide abrasive paper, Smear layer