2005PubMedRequires access

Effect of conditioner on bond strength of glass-ionomer adhesive to dentin/enamel with and without smear layer interposition.

Satoshi Inoue, Yasuhiko Abe, Yasuhiro Yoshida, Jan De Munck, Hidehiko Sano, Kazuomi Suzuki, Paul Lambrechts, Bart Van Meerbeek

Open publisher page 56 citations

Abstract

The effect of a polyalkenoic acid conditioner pretreatment on the bond strength of a glass-ionomer adhesive to tooth substrates with or without smear layer was evaluated. Smear-layer covered and smear-layer free dentin and enamel surfaces were prepared from 24 extracted human molars. Resin composite was bonded to the surfaces using FujiBond LC with or without a polyalkenoic acid conditioner and subjected to microtensile bond strength (microTBS) testing. Failure modes were determined using scanning electron microscopy. For dentin, smear-layer coverage and conditioner treatment did not reveal significant differences in microTBS, which ranged from 20 to 29 MPa. For enamel, smear-layer coverage did not significantly affect microTBS, whereas, the use of conditioner significantly improved microTBS, reaching the same microTBS-values as when bonded to dentin. Regarding failure mode, most dentin specimens failed mixed adhesive cohesively. For enamel, adhesive failures mostly occurred when no conditioner was used, though mixed failures were predominant when the specimens were conditioned beforehand. Bonding of the glass ionomer adhesive to dentin can be achieved without the separate use of a polyalkenoic acid conditioner, even with the interposition of a smear layer. However, instrumented and non-instrumented enamel requires separate conditioning to provide sufficient micro-mechanical retention.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The effect of a polyalkenoic acid conditioner pretreatment on the bond strength of a glass-ionomer adhesive to tooth substrates with or without smear layer was evaluated. Smear-layer covered and smear-layer free dentin and enamel surfaces were prepared from 24 extracted human molars. Resin composite was bonded to the surfaces using FujiBond LC with or without a polyalkenoic acid conditioner and subjected to microtensile bond strength (microTBS) testing. Failure modes were determined using scanning electron microscopy. For dentin, smear-layer coverage and conditioner treatment did not reveal significant differences in microTBS, which ranged from 20 to 29 MPa. For enamel, smear-layer coverage did not significantly affect microTBS, whereas, the use of conditioner significantly improved microTBS, reaching the same microTBS-values as when bonded to dentin. Regarding failure mode, most dentin specimens failed mixed adhesive cohesively. For enamel, adhesive failures mostly occurred when no conditioner was used, though mixed failures were predominant when the specimens were conditioned beforehand. Bonding of the glass ionomer adhesive to dentin can be achieved without the separate use of a polyalkenoic acid conditioner, even with the interposition of a smear layer. However, instrumented and non-instrumented enamel requires separate conditioning to provide sufficient micro-mechanical retention.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 56 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The effect of a polyalkenoic acid conditioner pretreatment on the bond strength of a glass-ionomer adhesive to tooth substrates with or without smear layer was evaluated. Smear-layer covered and smear-layer free dentin and enamel surfaces were prepared from 24 extracted human molars. Resin composite was bonded to the surfaces using FujiBond LC with or without a polyalkenoic acid conditioner and subjected to microtensile bond strength (microTBS) testing. Failure modes were determined using scanning electron microscopy. For dentin, smear-layer coverage and conditioner treatment did not reveal significant differences in microTBS, which ranged from 20 to 29 MPa. For enamel, smear-layer coverage did not significantly affect microTBS, whereas, the use of conditioner significantly improved microTBS, reaching the same microTBS-values as when bonded to dentin. Regarding failure mode, most dentin specimens failed mixed adhesive cohesively. For enamel, adhesive failures mostly occurred when no conditioner was used, though mixed failures were predominant when the specimens were conditioned beforehand. Bonding of the glass ionomer adhesive to dentin can be achieved without the separate use of a polyalkenoic acid conditioner, even with the interposition of a smear layer. However, instrumented and non-instrumented enamel requires separate conditioning to provide sufficient micro-mechanical retention.

Key concepts: Dentin, Enamel paint, Materials science, Adhesive, Glass ionomer cement, Bond strength, Composite material, Smear layer

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Effect of conditioner on bond strength of glass-ionomer adhesive to dentin/enamel with and without smear layer interposition. — Research Paper | ScholarLens