دوره 9، شماره 3 - ( 6-1403 )
جلد 9 شماره 3 صفحات 173-167 |
برگشت به فهرست نسخه ها
Ethics code: Our study was conducted in laboratory conditions and on extracted teeth.
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Shahidi S, Heidari S, Rahimikhoob M, Farar B, Safarzadeh Khosroshahi S. Effect of a Desensitizing Agent on Microshear Bond Strength of Two Bonding Systems. J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci 2024; 9 (3) :167-173
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-554-fa.html
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-554-fa.html
Effect of a Desensitizing Agent on Microshear Bond Strength of Two Bonding Systems. . 1403; 9 (3) :167-173
چکیده: (440 مشاهده)
Background and Aim: Postoperative tooth hypersensitivity after restorative procedures is a common finding. Considering the obstruction of dentinal tubules following the use of dentin desensitizers, there are some concerns about the effects of desensitizers on the bond strength of bonding systems. This study aimed to assess the effect of a desensitizer on microshear bond strength (µSBS) of two bonding systems.
Materials and Methods: In this in vitro study, 20 sound human molars were mesiodistally sectioned into halves, and the roots were cut at the cementoenamel junction. The samples (n=40) were then randomly divided into four groups (n=10): (I) Adper™ Single Bond 2, (II) Desensibilize desensitizing agent+ Adper™ Single Bond 2, (III) Single Bond Universal, and (IV) Desensibilize desensitizing agent + Single Bond Universal. Adhesives and desensitizing agents were applied according to the manufacturers’ instructions. Filtek Z250 composite cylinders were fabricated and bonded to dentin surfaces. The µSBS of each sample was then measured. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and a post-hoc test (P<0.05).
Results: A reduction in µSBS was found following the application of desensitizing agent in combination with AdperTM Single Bond 2 (P<0.05). The µSBS increased when the desensitizing agent was applied in combination with Single Bond Universal. However, this difference was not significant (P˃0.05).
Conclusion: Desensibilize desensitizing agent affected the dentinal tubule obstruction and decreased the µSBS when used with AdperTM Single Bond 2 total-etch system, while the µSBS increased when it was used with Single Bond Universal adhesive.
Materials and Methods: In this in vitro study, 20 sound human molars were mesiodistally sectioned into halves, and the roots were cut at the cementoenamel junction. The samples (n=40) were then randomly divided into four groups (n=10): (I) Adper™ Single Bond 2, (II) Desensibilize desensitizing agent+ Adper™ Single Bond 2, (III) Single Bond Universal, and (IV) Desensibilize desensitizing agent + Single Bond Universal. Adhesives and desensitizing agents were applied according to the manufacturers’ instructions. Filtek Z250 composite cylinders were fabricated and bonded to dentin surfaces. The µSBS of each sample was then measured. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and a post-hoc test (P<0.05).
Results: A reduction in µSBS was found following the application of desensitizing agent in combination with AdperTM Single Bond 2 (P<0.05). The µSBS increased when the desensitizing agent was applied in combination with Single Bond Universal. However, this difference was not significant (P˃0.05).
Conclusion: Desensibilize desensitizing agent affected the dentinal tubule obstruction and decreased the µSBS when used with AdperTM Single Bond 2 total-etch system, while the µSBS increased when it was used with Single Bond Universal adhesive.
نوع مطالعه: Original article |
موضوع مقاله:
Restorative Dentistry
| بازنشر اطلاعات | |
 |
این مقاله تحت شرایط Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License قابل بازنشر است. |
