Effect of Hydrophilic Amide Monomers on Dentin Bonding Strength

Mustafa Duzyol^1, , Sevim Atilan Yavuz², Zeyneb Merve Ozdemir² and Esra Duzyol³

¹Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Turkey

²Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey

³Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Turkey

Cite this paper:
Mustafa Duzyol, Sevim Atilan Yavuz, Zeyneb Merve Ozdemir and Esra Duzyol. Effect of Hydrophilic Amide Monomers on Dentin Bonding Strength. International Journal of Dental Sciences and Research. 2020; 8(3):72-74. doi: 10.12691/ijdsr-8-3-3

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) to dentin of one-step bonding agent containing hydrophilic amide monomers (HMA) and 10-Methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (MDP) with one-step bonding agent containing only MDP. Materials and Methods: 20 human third molar teeth randomly were divided into two groups. Teeth was abraded with a SiC disc (Carbimet, Bisco Inc., Schaumburg, USA) to be under 1 mm of enamel-dentin junction. The dentin surface of each teeth were etched with %37 phosphoric acid for 15 s and then rinsed with water spray for 10 s and after that air dried. Cylinders of composite (Clearfil Majesty Posterior, Kuraray Noritake Inc, Okuyama, Japan) were bonded using 2 dental bonding agents. Group A used bonding agent containing HMA+MDP (Clearfil Universal Quick bond, Kuraray America, Inc. New York/NY, USA) and Group B used bonding agent containing only MDP (Clearfil S3 Bond plus, Kuraray America, Inc. New York/NY, USA) applied in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. The speciemens were stored for 24 h in 37°C water and thermocycled between 5 and 55 C water with a 20 s dwell time for 5000 cycles. They were then submitted to a shear bond test with a universal testing machine (AGS-X, Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan) with a 100 N load cell at 1 mm/min. The values of SBS were analyzed with ANOVA/Tukey’s test. Results: Group A was 35,96±5,47 MPa and B was 24,25±7,5 MPa There was a statistical difference between the two bonding agents (p<0.05). Group A was significantly higher than Group B. Conclusions: According to this study, bonding agents containing which type of monomers may be one of the important factors influencing dentin bond strength. When bonding agents with hydrophilic amide monomers are used, it has showed higher shear bond strength.

Keywords:
hydrophilic amide monomers dentin bonding shear bonding strength polymerization time

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	Van Landuyt KL, Snauwaert J, De Munck et al. Systematic review of the chemical composition of contemporary dental adhesives. Biomaterials 2007; 28: 3757-85.
[2]	Sezinando A. Looking for the ideal adhesive-a review, Revista Portuguesa de Estomatologia. Med Dentária e Cir Maxilofac 2014; 55: 194-206.
[3]	Frankenberger R, Lohbauer U, Roggendorf MJet al.. Selective enamel etching reconsidered: better than etch-and-rinse and self-etch. J Adhes Dent 2008; 10: 339-44.
[4]	Feltrin Antoniazzi B, Ferreira Nicoloso G, Larissa Lenzi T et al.. Selective acid etching improves the bond strength of universal adhesive to sound and demineralized enamel of primary teeth. J Adhes Dent 2016; 18.
[5]	Samimi, P., Ghodrati, M., Shirban, F et al. Comparison of the dentin bond strength of two self-etch adhesives after prolonged air-drying and additional light-curing. J. Dent. 2017; 14, 292-298.
[6]	Shirai, K., De Munck, J., Yoshida, Y. et al. Effect of cavity configuration and aging on the bonding effectiveness of six adhesives to dentin. Dent. Mater. 2015; 21, 110-124.
[7]	Mine, A., De Munck, J., Cardoso, M.V et al. Dentin- smear remains at self-etch adhesive interface. Dent. Mater. 2014;30, 1147-1153.
[8]	Alshaikh, K.H., Hamama, H.H.H., Mahmoud, S.H. Effect of smear layer deproteinization on bonding of self-etch adhesives to dentin: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Restor. Dent. Endod. 2018; 43, e14.
[9]	de Goes MF, Shinohara MS, Freitas MS. Performance of a new one-step multi-mode adhesive on etched vs non-etched enamel on bond strength and interfacial mor- phology. J Adhes Dent 2014; 16: 243-50.
[10]	Hanabusa M, Mine A, Kuboki T, Momoi Yet al. Bonding effectiveness of a new ‘multi-mode’adhesive to enamel and dentine. J Dent 2012; 40: 475-84.
[11]	Munoz MA, Sezinando A, Luque-Martinez Iet al. Influence of a hydrophobic resin coating on the bonding efficacy of three universal adhesives. J Dent 2014; 42: 595-602.
[12]	Wagner A, Wendler M, Petschelt A et al.. Bonding performance of universal adhesives in different etching modes. J Dent 2014; 42: 800-7.
[13]	Van Landuyt KL, De Munck J, Snauwaert J et al. Monomer-solvent phase separation in one-step self-etch adhesives. J Dent Res. 2005; 84(2): 183-188.
[14]	Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y et al. Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent. 2003; 28(3): 215-235.
[15]	Poggio C., Beltrami R., Scribante A. et al. Chiesa, Shear bond strength of one-step self-etch adhesives: pH influence, Dent. Res. J. 2015; 209-214.
[16]	Lührs A.K., Guhr S., Schilke R., et al. Shear bond strength of self-etch adhesives to enamel with additional phosphoric acid etching, Oper. Dent. 2008; 155-162.
[17]	Iwai H, Nishiyama N, Effect of calcium salt of functional monomer on bonding performance, J. Dent. Res. 2012; 1043-1048.
[18]	Yokota Y., Nishiyama N., Determination of molecular species of calcium salt of MDP produced through decalcification of enamel and dentin by MDP-based one-step adhesive, Dent. Mater. J. 2015; 270-279.
[19]	Schouten, P. Super stick, super quick!. Brit. Dent. J, 2017, 223.8: 614.