EditorialIntroduction to and outcomes of the conference on adhesion in dentistry
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)
Should statistical analysis of bond-strength data include or exclude cohesive failures?
2022, Dental MaterialsShear bond strength vs interfacial fracture toughness — Adherence to CAD/CAM blocks
2019, Dental MaterialsCitation 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 ReconstructionsInterfacial fracture toughness of aged adhesive-dentin interfaces
2015, Dental MaterialsCitation 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].