Objective: The objective of this research was to study the tensile bond strengths of new bonding agents with composite and enamel. Methods: The enamel surfaces of human molars were exposed with 600-grit SiC. Then they were divided into four groups with twelve specimens in each group. A composite, TPH Spectrum A2 (Dentsply/Caulk, Milford, DE) were used to bond to the enamel surfaces in the form of a truncated cone, 3 mm in diameter at the bonding surfaces and 5 mm in diameter at the base, with one of the four bonding agents: iBond (IB) (Heraeus Kulzer, South Bend, IN), Brush&Bond (BR) (Parkell, Farmingdale, NY), AdheSE (AD) (Ivoclar Vivadent, Amherst, NY), and Contax (CO) (DMG, Hamburg, Germany). The bonding procedures were done according to the manufacturers' direction. One step was used in iBond and Brush&Bond. Two steps were used in AdheSE and Contax. Elipar TriLight (3M/ESPE, St. Paul, MN) was used on materials that required light curing. All bonded specimens were subjected to 1000 thermocycles in 5 degree C and 55 degree C water with a dwell time of 20 seconds in each temperature. Tensile forces were used for debonding with an Instron Universal Testing Machine (Canton, MA). Results: Mean tensile bond strengths and standard of deviation (SD) in MPa are shown below (n=12). Fisher's PLSD interval (p=0.05) for comparisons of means was 3.7 MPa.

IB: 12.4(3.5); BR: 13.1(4.1); AD: 7.8(3.4); CO: 20.5(6.3)

Conclusion: The results suggested that Contax had significantly higher bond strength to enamel after thermocycling than Brush&Bond, iBond, and AdheSE. No significant differences were found between Brush&Bond and iBond, and both were significantly higher than AdheSE.

Back to the Dental Materials: I - Adhesion-Composite Bond Strength Program
Back to the IADR/AADR/CADR 82nd General Session (March 10-13, 2004)

Top Level Search