This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by De Munck, J. Articles by Van Meerbeek, B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by De Munck, J. Articles by Van Meerbeek, B. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

A Critical Review of the Durability of Adhesion to Tooth Tissue: Methods and Results

¹ Leuven BIOMAT Research Cluster, Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillo-Facial Surgery, Catholic University of Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium; and
² Department TEWO, Laboratory of Dental Materials, University of Antwerp-RUCA, Groenenborgerlaan 171, B-2020 Antwerpen, Belgium;

View larger version (33K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Classification of contemporary adhesives following adhesion strategy and number of clinical application steps. Gi = glass ionomer; PAA = polyalkenoic acid.

View larger version (53K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. Schematic presenting the experimental design of micro-tensile bond strength testing.

View larger version (10K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 3. Pooled in-house µTBS data. (a) Statistical analysis of pooled enamel µTBS data per adhesive class, as gathered at the Leuven BIOMAT research cluster during the period 2001–2004, always using the same experimental protocol (Fig. 2). The central circle/rectangle represents the mean value, and vertical bars denote 95% confidence intervals. Adhesive classes in which the µTBS was not significantly different are connected by a horizontal line. (b) Statistical analysis of pooled dentin µTBS data per adhesive class, as gathered at the Leuven BIOMAT research cluster during the period 2001–2004, always using the same experimental protocol (Fig. 2). The central circle/rectangle represents the mean value, and vertical bars denote 95% confidence intervals. Adhesive classes in which the µTBS was not significantly different are connected by a horizontal line.

View larger version (27K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 4. Working principle of the micro-rotary fatigue resistance (µRFR) test set-up. (a) A small rectangular beam with a rounded constriction at the tooth-biomaterial interface (diameter, 1.2 mm) is prepared by means of a diamond saw and a lathe. At a fixed distance of 12.5 mm from the interface (l = lever arm), a load (F) is applied, while the tooth part of the specimen is still clamped in the chuck of the lathe. Maximal stress (tension) is induced at the upper part of the interface (•). (b) When the specimen is rotated around its main axis, the outer layer of the interface (•) is subjected to sinusoidal tension-compression cycles (S = stress).

View larger version (160K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 5. TEM photomicrograph showing the silver tracer penetration within an adhesive interface prepared with an experimental mild, one-step self-etch adhesive (acetone/water-based adhesive, containing HEMA and a carboxyl- and a phosphate-based functional monomer; GC, Japan). Tiny silver particles are scattered throughout the hybrid layer (white hand pointer) and the adhesive resin. Note also the nanofiller in the adhesive resin (black hand pointer).

Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 84, No. 2, 118-132 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/154405910508400204


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?