Elsevier

Dental Materials

Volume 26, Issue 2, February 2010, Pages 105-107
Dental Materials

Editorial
Introduction to and outcomes of the conference on adhesion in dentistry

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.12.003Get rights and content

Section snippets

Background and introduction

Many researchers would agree that bond strength testing and interpreting outcomes of such tests can be frustrating, in large part due to the typically high variance of the data and the discrepancy between results reported in the literature by different laboratories. One could argue that this situation has not changed substantially in decades. There is as yet no agreed upon protocol to follow when testing adhesion in dentistry. This is especially critical when bonding to tooth structure which

Goal of the conference

The overall goal of this three half-days conference was to provide a critical assessment of the various test methods used primarily for dentin and enamel bonding studies in order to identify general trends, important variables to be considered, and their relation to outcomes. It was thought that the results of this conference might serve as a basis for a future meeting with the goal of reaching consensus about what is important to include in bond strength testing and which method may be most

Conference agenda

Day 1 – Adhesion Tests: The Science and the Testing Variables

A Review of Adhesion Science
Sally Marshall (San Francisco, United States)

Variables Related to the Materials and Preparing for Bond Strength Testing
Lawrence Mair (Lancaster, United Kingdom)

Variables Related to the Clinical Situation and Treatment of the Substrate
Jorge Perdigao (Minneapolis, United States)

Day 2 – Adhesion Tests: The Test Methods –Attributes and Limitations

Review of “Macro” Test Methods – Shear and Tension
Roberto Braga

Conference conclusions and next steps

At the conclusion of the conference, several questions were posed to the audience. The interpretation of the presenter (JF) follow, based on the current state of knowledge.

1.Are bond strength tests of dental materials useful?
A:Yes, but currently the tests are “overused” and their results “over extrapolated.”

2.Can we identify absolute bond strength values?
A:Probably not – or at least this may not be the most important issue. It is likely that energy of failure is more important.

 Do we need to be

References (0)

Cited by (17)

  • Shear bond strength vs interfacial fracture toughness — Adherence to CAD/CAM blocks

    2019, Dental Materials
    Citation Excerpt :

    However, it should be noted that failure mode was “valid” in all IKIC tests performed, occurring mainly at the RCB-adhesive interface, with occasional cohesive failures in the adhesive layer. This fact further supports the application of fracture mechanics methodology in the characterization of adherence, as previously recommended by others [1,5,7,18–20]. To calculate SBS, the maximum load at fracture is divided by the macroscopic surface area of contact, which neglects the increase in surface area created by preconditioning procedures.

  • Understanding the chemistry and improving the durability of dental resin-dentin bonded interface

    2017, Material-Tissue Interfacial Phenomena: Contributions from Dental and Craniofacial Reconstructions
  • Interfacial fracture toughness of aged adhesive-dentin interfaces

    2015, Dental Materials
    Citation Excerpt :

    Nevertheless, the μTBS correlated well with the CNB-iFT, is more versatile and less laborious and time-consuming [2]. Bond durability is deemed to be the most relevant parameter to predict clinical performance [3–7]. Commonly used methods are 3 months to 1 year water storage [8], thermo-cycling [9], fatigue [10] and chemical aging [11].

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text