{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.08214676889375684, 'fraction_numerical': 0.04600219058050383, 'mean_word_length': 4.373529411764705, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 4, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Adhesion of resin composite to enamel and dentin: a methodological assessment

Abstract This study compared the impact of four test methods on adhesion of resin composite to enamel and dentin. Human molars (N = 54) were randomly assigned to test the adhesion of resin composite material (Quadrant Universal LC) using one of the following test methods: (a) macroshear test (SBT; n = 16), (b) macrotensile test (TBT; n = 16), (c) microshear test (μSBT; n = 16) and (d) microtensile test (μTBT; n = 6). In a randomized manner, buccal or lingual surfaces of each tooth, were assigned as enamel or dentin substrates. Enamel and dentin surfaces were conditioned using an etch-and-rinse adhesive system (Syntac Classic). After storage (24 h, 37 °C), bond tests were conducted in a Universal Testing Machine (1 mm/min) and failure types were analyzed. Data were analyzed using Univariate and Tukey`s, Bonneferroni tests (α = 0.05). Two-parameter Weibull modulus, scale (m) and shape (0) were calculated. Test method (p < 0.001) and substrate type (p < 0.001) significantly affected the results. When testing adhesion of resin composite to enamel, SBT (25.9 ± 5.7)a, TBT (17.3 ± 5.1)a,c and μSBT (27.2 ± 6.6)a,d test methods showed significantly higher mean bond values compared to μTBT (10.1 ± 4.4)b (p < 0.05). Adhesion of resin composite to dentin did not show significant difference depending on the test method (12 ± 5.7–20.4 ± 4.8; p > 0.05). Only with SBT, significant difference was observed for bond values between enamel (25.9 ± 5.7) and dentin (12 ± 5.7; p < 0.05). Weibull distribution presented the highest shape values for enamel-μSBT (29.7) and dentin-μSBT (22.2) among substrate-test combinations. Regardless of the test method, cohesive failures in substrate were more frequent in enamel (19.1%) than in dentin (9.8%).