We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry



Forgotten password?


J Adhes Dent 21 (2019), No. 3     7. June 2019
J Adhes Dent 21 (2019), No. 3  (07.06.2019)

Page 281-286, doi:10.3290/j.jad.a42549, PubMed:31165107

Bond Strength of Methacrylate-based Blends Containing Elastomeric Monomers and Alternative Initiators after Thermomechanical Cycling
Ely, Caroline / Ottoboni, Thiago Dias / Kumagai, Rose Yakushijin / Souza, Natália Alves de / Ramos, Tatiana da Silva / Arrais, César Augusto Galvão / Piva, Evandro / Reis, André Figueiredo
Purpose: To evaluate the bond strength to dentin produced by experimental adhesives formulated with an elastomeric methacrylate monomer (EMM) and an alternative initiator system based on a Thioxanthone derivative (QTX).
Materials and Methods: A self-etching primer was used. For the bonding resin, a model adhesive (G1) was formulated containing bis-GMA/TEG-DMA/HEMA (co-monomeric blend) + CQ/EDAB (initiator system). The other groups were formulated by adding to this formulation: EMM only (G2), QTX (G3), or EMM and QTX (G4). Clearfil SE Bond was used as the commercial control group. Fifty bovine teeth (n = 5) were restored with each one of the five adhesives. After restorative procedures, half of the specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 h. The other half was fixed on a metal stub and subjected to 200,000 mechanical (50 N loading at 2 Hz frequency) and 1000 thermal cycles (5°C and 55°C). Afterwards, specimens were serially sectioned into beams and tested in tension until fracture. Bond strengths were statistically analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α = 5%).
Results: After 24 h, significantly higher µTBS was observed for the formulation containing EMM and QTX (G4) when compared to Clearfil SE Bond (p < 0.05). No significant differences in µTBS were detected among the experimental groups after 24 h (p>0.05). After thermomechanical cycling, no significant differences were observed among groups.
Conclusion: The addition of EMM and QTX can be considered as possible alternative in dental adhesive formulations.

Keywords: adhesives, microtensile bond strength, thermomechanical load cycling, thioxanthone