Differences in tensile adhesion strength between HEMA and nonHEMA-based dentin bonding applied on superficial and deep dentin surfaces

Eresha Melati Kusuma Wurdani, Adioro Soetojo, Devi Eka Juniarti

= http://dx.doi.org/10.20473/j.djmkg.v50.i1.p14-18
Abstract views = 159 times | views = 114 times

Abstract


Background: Improvement in dentistry shows some progresses, due to patients awareness on the importance of dental care. Cervical lesion is the most common phenomenon which oftenly found 46.36% in man and 38.13% in woman. Cervical lesions need composite restoration for treatment to stop the process of tissue damage. The process of adhesion of composite restoration material to the structure of the tooth is not easily separated and it needs optimal function in the oral cavity. Application of dentin bonding agents to attach the composite is needed. Selection of HEMA-based bonding material and Hema free-based bonding material which have a different solvent in their composition, as applied to the dentin superficial and deep dentin, affect the results of debonding test. Debonding test is done to measure the adhesion strength of a bonding material. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to analyze differences in tensile bond strength of dentine bonding HEMA-based and HEMA-free based after application in superficial and deep dentine surfaces. Method: The tooth of the bovine was as samples. A superficial dentine sample was taken from 0.5-1 mm of dentino enamel junction and a deep dentine sample was taken from 0.5 mm culmination of pulp horn. Dentine surface area was equal to p x r2 = (3.14 x 22) = 12.56 mm2. Six samples of HEMA-based bonding was applied to the dentine superficial. Six samples of HEMAfree based bonding was applied to the superficial dentine. Six samples of HEMA-based bonding was applied to the deep dentine. Six samples of HEMA-free based bonding was applied to the deep dentine. Tensile strength was measured using an Autograph AG-10TE. Result: There were differences tensile bond strength of dentine bonding HEMA-based and HEMA-free based after the application on superficial (p=0.000) and deep dentine surfaces (p=0.000). Conclusion: There were differences tensile bond strength of dentine bonding HEMA-based and HEMA-free based after the application on superficial and deep dentine surfaces. The use of dentine bonding materials HEMA-free based were better than HEMA-based after application on different dentine depths.

Keywords


HEMA-based; HEMA-free based; superficial dentine; deep dentin

Full Text:

PDF

References


Al Zahawi AR, Mahmood MA, Talabani RM, Mansoor RA. The prevelence and causes of dental non carious cervical lesion in the sulaimani population (cross-sectional study). IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences 2015; 14(8): 94-5.

Anusavice KJ. Philip’s science of dental material. 11th ed. USA: WB Elsevier; 2003. p. 21, 24, 79, 251-9, 227-32.

Kumari RV, Siddaraju K, Nagaraj H, Poluri RK. Evaluation of shear bond strength of newer bonding systems on super cial and deep dentin. J Int Oral Health 2015; 7(9): 31–5.

Adioro S. Tensile bond strength of hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) bonding agent to bovine dentine surface at various humadity. Dental Journal (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi) 2006; 39(2): 59-62.

von Fraunhofer JA. Adhesion and cohesion. International Journal of Dentistry 2012; 2012: 1-9.

Craig RG. Restorative dental materials. 11th ed. London: Mosby; 2002. p. 57, 69-70, 232-40, 261, 269-70.

Bourbia M. Biodegradation of dental resin composite and adhesive by Streptococcus mutans: an in vitro study. Toronto: ProQuest; 2013. p. 6-13.

Papakonstantinou AE, Eliades T, Cellesi F, Watts DC, Silikas N. Evaluatin of UDMA’s potential as a substitute for Bis-GMA in

orthodontic adhesives. Dent Mater 2013; Dent Mater 2013; 29(8): 898-905.

van Dijken JWV. A randomized controlled 5-year rospective study of two HEMA-free adhesives, a 1-step self etching and a 3-step etchand-rinse, in non-carious cervical lesions. Sweden: Dental materials; 2013. p. 271-80.

Felizardo KR, Lemos LVFM, de Carvalho RV, Junior AG, Lopes MB, MouraSK. Bond strength of HEMA-containing versus HEMAfree self-etch adhesive systems to dentin. Braz Dent 2011; 22(6): 468-72.

Cardoso MV, de Almeida Neves A, Mine A, Coutinho E, Van Landuyt K, De Munck J, Van Meerbeek B. Current aspects on bonding effectiveness and stability in adhesive dentistry. Aust Dent J. 2011; 56 (Suppl 1): 31-44.

Hashimoto M, Ohno H, Kaga M, Sano H, Endo K, Oguchi H. Fractured surface characterization: wet versus dry bonding. Dent Mater 2002; 18(2): 95-102.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.