Loading…

Which concentrations and application methods of chlorhexidine are proper for universal adhesives?

To in vitro evaluate the effects of different chlorhexidine (CHX) concentrations and application methods on the microshear bond strength (µSBS) between dentin and universal adhesives (UAs) used in self-etch mode with different functional monomers. In this study, 300 third molars were randomly assign...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of adhesion science and technology 2022-11, Vol.36 (22), p.2404-2417
Main Authors: Recen, Duygu, Yıldırım, Bengisu, Şanlı, Büşra, Çelik, Esra Uzer
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:To in vitro evaluate the effects of different chlorhexidine (CHX) concentrations and application methods on the microshear bond strength (µSBS) between dentin and universal adhesives (UAs) used in self-etch mode with different functional monomers. In this study, 300 third molars were randomly assigned into 25 experimental groups based on the combinations of different variables: the UAs and functional monomers (Clearfil Universal Bond Quick [MDP, CU, Kuraray], Tokuyama Universal Bond [3D-SR, TU, Tokuyama], Gluma Bond Universal [MDP-4-META, GU, Kulzer], Prime & Bond Elect [MDP-PENTA, PEU, Dentsply Sirona], and Single Bond Universal [MDP-Vitrebond copolymer, SU, 3 M]), the CHX concentration (2% and 0.2%), and the application mode (with rinsing [R], without rinsing [WR]). Two composite resin samples were prepared on each tooth for the study groups (n = 24). Then, these samples were submitted to a µSBS test after 500 thermal cycles (load of 50 kgF and crosshead speed, 0.5 mm/min). The resulting data were statistically analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (α = 0.05). The CU-2%CHX-WR, TU-2%CHX-WR, and GU-2%CHX-WR groups had lower µSBS values than the control groups (CU-control, TU-control, and GU-control) (p 
ISSN:0169-4243
1568-5616
DOI:10.1080/01694243.2022.2052427