Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Print this page Email this page Users Online: 496
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 2  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 41-45

A comparison of the bond strength of different adhesive systems to dentin contaminated with chloroform


1 Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Inonu University, Malatya, Turkey
2 Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Inonu University, Malatya, Turkey
3 Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Abant İzzet Baysal University, Bolu, Turkey

Correspondence Address:
Neslihan Simsek
Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Inonu University, Malatya - 44280
Turkey
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2321-4619.129024

Rights and Permissions

Aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strengths of five different bonding agents to dentin contaminated with chloroform which cleaning the remnants of the root canal sealer in coronal access cavities of teeth. Materials and Methods: A total of 30 extracted human mandibular molar teeth were used for study. Teeth were sectioned with diamond bur to expose the superficial dentin. AH Plus as a root canal sealer was placed to exposed dentin surface. Teeth were stored at least for 5 min motionless for sealer set. More of sealer on the surface of teeth was taken with the help of cotton pellets. Dentin surface was treated with 0.1 mL of chloroform which was kept for 1 min. After that, surfaces of teeth were flushed with distilled water and dried. Teeth were separated randomly into five groups and Clearfil SE Bond, Futura Bond M, Adper Easy Bond, Clearfil S3 Bond, and Optibond FL bonding agents were applied according to manufacturer's instructions. The specimens were sectioned parallel blocks approximately 1 mm thickness and 1 mm width. The specimens pasted apparatus and subjected to microtensile testing device with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Connection surface of all samples was measured after the end of the test process. The connection types of surfaces were examined under a light microscope magnification Χ10. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the Optibond FL and Adper Easy Bond. However, Adper Easy Bond gave higher binding than the other tested materials. There was no statistically difference among Optibond FL, Clearfil S3 Bond, and Clearfil SE Bond. Conclusions: Many endodontically treated teeth are lost due to poor restorative treatment of teeth. Endodontic treatment procedures will affect bonding agents, so it could result in failure of the restoration.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2243    
    Printed57    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded246    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal