d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 6 ( 2 0 1 0 ) e38–e49

available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.intl.elsevierhealth.com/journals/dema

Adhesion to tooth structure: A critical review

of “macro” test methods

Roberto R. Braga ∗ , Josete B.C. Meira, Leticia C.C. Boaro, Tathy A. Xavier
University of São Paulo School of Dentistry, Dept. of Dental Materials, Av. Prof. Lineu Prestes, 2227, São Paulo, SP 05508-000, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Objectives. Bond strength between adhesive systems and the tooth structure is influenced by
Received 19 November 2009 a large number of variables, which makes the comparison among studies virtually impossi-
Accepted 19 November 2009 ble. Also, failure often times propagates into the dental substrate or the composite, deeming
the results questionable at best. In spite of the increased popularity gained by micro-tensile
and micro-shear tests, in vitro evaluations using specimens with relatively large bonding
Keywords: areas remain frequent. This review focuses on aspects related to specimen geometry and
Bond strength test mechanics of “macro” shear and tensile bond strength tests.
Shear Methods. Besides information drawn from the literature, the effect of some parameters on
Tensile stress distribution at the bonded interface was assessed using finite element analysis (FEA).
Dental adhesives Results. Bond strength tends to increase with smaller bonding areas and with the use of high
Finite element analysis elastic modulus composites. Stress concentration at the bonded interface is much more
severe in shear compared to tension. Among shear methods, the use of the chisel shows the
highest stress concentration. Within the limits suggested by the ISO/TS 11405, crosshead
speed does not seem to influence bond strength values. Pooled data from currently avail-
able adhesives tested in either shear or tension showed 44% of adhesive failures, 31% mixed
and 25% cohesive in the substrate (tooth or composite). A comparative bond strength study
involving three adhesive systems revealed similarities between “macro” and “micro” coun-
terparts regarding material ranking, whereas “macro” tests presented a higher incidence of
cohesive failures.
Significance. Simplicity warrants “macro” bond strength tests an enduring popularity, in spite
of their evident limitations. From a mechanical standpoint, knowing the stress distribution
at the bonded interface and how it is affected by the materials and loading method used is
key to explain the results.
© 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Academy of Dental Materials. All rights
reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e39
2. A survey of recent bond strength studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e40
3. Variables of influence related to specimen design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e40
3.1. Bonding area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e40
3.2. Elastic modulus of the resin composite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e41

∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 11 30917840.
E-mail address: [email protected] (R.R. Braga).
0109-5641/$ – see front matter © 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Academy of Dental Materials. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.dental.2009.11.150
 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 6 ( 2 0 1 0 ) e38–e49 e39

4. Variables of influence related to test mechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e41

4.1. Type of loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e41
4.2. Crosshead speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e43
5. Incidence of cohesive failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e43
6. A comparison between macro and micro bond strength tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e44
7. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e45
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e45
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e45

in specimens with large bonded areas (Fig. 1). The pref-

1. Introduction erence for conventional shear and tensile tests is justified
because they are easy to perform, requiring minimal equip-
Over the years, clinicians have relied upon laboratory evalua- ment and specimen preparation. However, though a lot of
tions to choose which adhesive systems to use in their daily information can be found on specimen geometry and other
practice. Though the validity of bond strength tests to pre- testing variables for “micro” bond strength tests [16–18],
dict clinical performance of dental adhesives is questionable the same is not true for the “macro” tensile and shear
[1,2], recent evidence shows that clinical results can, to some tests.
extent, be estimated based upon laboratory results [3–5]. More- Reviews published in the past evidenced a concern with
over, mechanical testing of bonded interfaces has provided the bonding substrate and specimen storage conditions, only
some valuable information in terms of identifying substrate minimally discussing the variables of the mechanical test
variables [6,7] and helping define guidelines for application itself [1,12,19–21]. The International Organization for Stan-
procedures [8]. dardization (ISO) technical specification ISO/TS 11405 [22],
Until the mid-nineties, shear and tensile bond strength published in 1994 and last revised in 2003, reflects this ten-
tests were performed exclusively in specimens with relatively dency, describing with greater detail the characteristics and
large bonded areas, usually 3–6 mm in diameter (approxi- preparation of the tooth substrate for the bonding procedure,
mately 7–28 mm2 ). However, the validity of expressing bond and leaving aspects such as bonding area, testing assemblies
strength in terms of nominal (i.e., average) stress has been or loading conditions more vague. As a result, a wide variety
questioned due to the heterogeneity of the stress distribu- of experimental protocols is found among researchers, with
tion at the bonded interface [9–11]. Moreover, cohesive failure evident effect on the outcomes [23,24]. A systematic review
of both the composite and the dental substrate is a common with meta-analysis identified composite type, bonding area,
occurrence, precluding an accurate assessment of the interfa- testing mode (shear, tensile or micro-tensile) and crosshead
cial bond strength [12]. The need for new methods to overcome speed as factors that significantly influence bond strength,
these limitations led to the use of specimens with small bond- along with several others related to the substrate, specimen
ing areas (i.e., below 2 mm2 ), in the so-called micro-tensile and storage conditions and thermocycling [25]. The type of device
micro-shear tests [13–15]. used for load application was also shown to affect the results
In spite of the increased popularity of the “micro” bond [26–29].
strength tests and the criticism endured by the conven- The purpose of this article was to review aspects related
tional tensile and shear methods, the number of articles to specimen geometry and test mechanics that may influence
using “macro” tests published in recent years remains “macro” shear and tensile bond strength results. Finite ele-
high, meaning that a lot of the available data on den- ment analysis (FEA) was used to assess the effect of selected
tal adhesion still comes from mechanical tests performed variables on the stress distribution at the bonded interface.

Fig. 1 – Number of articles/year published on dentin and enamel bond strength between 1982 and 2008, according to
www.scopus.com. Left: articles grouped by testing method, right: articles grouped by specimen dimensions, i.e., “macro” or
“micro” (publications on bond strength of orthodontic brackets to enamel were not included).
e40 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 6 ( 2 0 1 0 ) e38–e49

Fig. 2 – Three-dimensional models used for finite element analysis (left: shear; right: tension). Points A and B define the
diameter of the bonding area.

Specimen failure mode was discussed based on data retrieved

from the recent literature. Also, a brief comparison between
3. Variables of influence related to
“macro” and “micro” bond strength tests was performed using
specimen design
experimental data obtained with three adhesive systems.
3.1. Bonding area

The choice of bonding area used in “macro” tensile and shear

2. A survey of recent bond strength studies tests is often made based on the substrate area available. The
ISO/TR 11405 [22] does not identify a specific value, but it does
In order to verify how researchers are currently performing mention a clear delimitation of the bonding area as an impor-
tensile and shear bond strength tests, 100 studies published tant requirement and shows a diagram of a split mould with a
between 2007 and 2009 (shear: 74, tensile: 26) were surveyed 3-mm diameter hole. The relationship between bonding area
[30–128]. Unsurprisingly, no consensus was found in any of the and strength has received more attention with the develop-
parameters observed. ment of micro-tensile and micro-shear tests. For specimens
Most studies used bonding areas between 3 and 4 mm in with rectangular bonding areas between 0.25 and 11.65 mm2 ,
diameter (57%), while 4% did not include this information. tensile bond strength to dentin was shown to decrease as
These numbers do not differ from those reported 12 years ago, bonding area increased, following a logarithmic function [13].
where the mean diameter among 50 studies was 3.97 mm and A similar trend was observed in enamel, with areas between
6% of the studies omitted this information [23]. Pre-formed 0.5 and 3.0 mm2 [7]. Another study showed that specimens
rods were used in 31% of the tensile tests and none of the with circular cross-section between 1.1 and 3.1 mm2 (1.2 and
shear tests. Composite height varied between 2 and 5 mm. 2.0 mm in diameter, respectively) presented an inverse linear
A description of the testing method was included in 66% of relationship between bonding area and strength when tested
the studies. For shear loading, the knife-edge rod was used either in tension or shear [14].
in half of the studies describing the experimental assembly Such relationship between bonding area and strength is
utilized. All studies reported the crosshead speed, with 0.5 explained by fracture mechanics, initially derived from a series
and 1.0 mm/min being the most frequent values (46 and 41%, of experiments and mathematical deductions performed by
respectively), also in agreement with a recent survey [24]. Griffith [129], from which he concluded that the strength of a
Specimen failure mode analysis was present in 64% of the solid elastic body is governed by the presence of microscopic
studies, performed either under low magnification (10–50×) flaws. A few decades later, Irwin [130] defined the parameters
using stereomicroscopes (47%) or with the use of scanning involved in crack propagation. Briefly, failure of the bonded
electronic microscopy (17%). Regarding sample size, 10 spec- interface occurs when a crack propagates from a critical size
imens per group were used in 59% of the studies, while 15% flaw found in an area subjected to high tensile stresses. The
used between five and eight specimens and 26% used between larger the bonding area, the higher is the probability of a flaw
11 and 25 specimens per group. The highest coefficient of vari- of critical size being present and, consequently, the lower is
ation found in each study averaged 36 ± 14% (minimum: 10%, the specimen’s bond strength.
maximum: 75%). This average is within the range mentioned Very few studies evaluated the influence of bonding area
in the ISO/TS 11405 as expected for these methods (20–50%). on “macro” strength tests. The shear bond strength of a two-
 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 6 ( 2 0 1 0 ) e38–e49 e41

step etch-and-rinse system (Single Bond, 3M ESPE) did not

Table 1 – Maximum principal stress ( max ) and
vary significantly in specimens with diameters between 2 mm maximum shear stress ( max ) at the dentin/composite
(3.1 mm2 , 20 MPa) and 5 mm (19.6 mm2 , 15 MPa), but it was sta- interface, in MPa, observed in shear and tensile loading
tistically higher for specimens with 1 mm diameter (0.8 mm2 , as a function of composite elastic modulus (E, in GPa).
47 MPa) and lower for those with 6 mm diameter (28.3 mm2 , Composite E (GPa) Shear loading Tensile loading
9 MPa) [131]. Another study testing two three-step systems
under tensile loading, Scotchbond Multi-Purpose (3M ESPE)  max  max  max  max
and Optibond (Kerr), showed statistically higher bond strength 6 159 123 18.5 7.1
for 2-mm diameter specimens (10.3 MPa and 15.7 MPa, respec- 9 131 114 17.8 6.6
tively) compared to 4-mm diameter (7.0 MPa and 11.1 MPa, 12 114 105 17.3 6.3

respectively) [132]. Though “macro” shear and tension tests

half of the model was represented (Fig. 2). MSC.PATRAN (MSC
show a trend for increased bond strength values with the
Software Corp., Santa Ana, CA, USA) was used for pre- and
use of small bonding areas similar to what was observed
post-processing, and MSC.Marc was used as processor.
in micro-tensile specimens, the evidence in the literature is
In agreement with experimental data, stress concentra-
not sufficient to support a definite statement in terms of
tion at the bonded interface decreased as composite modulus
the influence of bonding areas on strength values. There-
increased from 6 to 12 GPa, which is explained by the reduction
fore, the comparison among studies using different bonding
in modulus mismatch between both materials. This effect,
areas must consider the specimen size when interpreting the
however, is much less pronounced for tensile loading (Table 1),
results.
as previously reported [9]. Also, the effect of composite elastic
modulus on bond strength seems to be dependent upon the
3.2. Elastic modulus of the resin composite
adhesive system used [82].

The use of stiffer composites may significantly increase bond

strength values. A recent study observed a weak but sta- 4. Variables of influence related to test
tistically significant correlation between dentin shear bond mechanics
strength and composite flexural properties [116]. A similar
trend was observed in an earlier study evaluating the tensile 4.1. Type of loading
bond strength to dentin of an adhesive system associated with
different composites [133]. Nominal bond strength values carry an underlying assump-
The influence of composite elastic modulus on stress distri- tion that stresses are uniformly distributed across the bonded
bution at the bonded interface was studied by finite element interface. However, as displayed in Fig. 3, in the shear test
analysis (FEA) using three-dimensional models representing stresses close to the loading area are much higher than the
a 3-mm diameter, 2-mm high composite cylinder ( = 0.25) nominal shear value (16 MPa). Moreover, the choice of testing
bonded to a dentin disk (E = 18 GPa,  = 0.3) through a 50-␮m assembly has great influence on stress distribution. The use of
thick adhesive layer (E = 2 GPa,  = 0.3). A load was applied to a knife-edge chisel causes severe stress concentration at the
the composite either perpendicularly or parallel to the bonded load application area, whereas the wire loop shows a better
interface in order to produce a nominal stress of 16 MPa. Due stress distribution at the edge of the bonding area [10]. Stress
to the symmetry in geometry and loading conditions, only concentration with the use of the chisel may explain the small

Fig. 3 – Stress distributions (maximum principal stress,  max , and maximum shear stress,  max ) at the dentin side of the
dentin/composite interface according to the type of shear loading. Left: 0.2-mm knife-edge chisel; center: 2-mm flat rod;
right: wire loop. Load was applied at 0.2 mm from the bonded interface. Line A–B indicates the diameter of the bonding area.
e42 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 6 ( 2 0 1 0 ) e38–e49

Fig. 4 –  max / max across half of the diameter of the bonded interface according to the type of shear loading, applied 0.2 mm
distant from the dentin/adhesive interface (left) or according to the point of load application using a 0.2-mm thick
knife-edge chisel (right).

areas of composite cohesive failure close to the loading point bution. When load is applied up to 1 mm from the interface,
observed experimentally [134]. Also, it may explain the sta- tensile and shear stresses increase towards the bonded inter-
tistically lower bond strengths when the chisel is compared face, explained by the Saint Venant principle (i.e., a generalized
against testing assemblies using larger contact areas between stress concentration in areas close to the load application
the composite and the loading device, such as the Single-Plane point) [136]. This trend for higher stress concentration with
Shear Test Assembly (SPSTA) [131], the Ultradent notched rod smaller distances is supported by experimental evidence
and the wire loop [27–29]. showing lower bond strength when the load was applied
Another important aspect of shear tests is that closer to the at the interface as opposed to a 0.5 mm distance from the
interface tensile stresses are actually higher than shear, sug- dentin substrate [134]. The ratio between maximum shear
gesting that the former is responsible for failure initiation, as and maximum principal stress decreases as load applica-
previously stated [9,135,136]. For the knife-edge chisel and the tion moves away from the interface, indicative of an increase
wire loop methods, shear stresses start to prevail over ten- in bending moment (Fig. 4, right). When load is applied
sion at 0.3 mm from the load application area, while for the at distances beyond 1 mm from the interface (not shown),
flat rod tensile stresses predominate up to 1.2 mm (Fig. 4, left). the increase in tensile stress as load application moves
Therefore, the term “shear bond strength” would more appro- away from the bonded interface becomes even more evident
priately refer to the loading mode, rather than the nature of [9,136].
the stress responsible for bonding failure. In the tensile test, stresses are far more homogeneous
The distance between the point of load application and across the interface than in shear and, therefore, maxi-
the bonded interface in shear tests also affects stress distri- mum principal stress values are much closer to the nominal

Fig. 5 – Stress distributions (maximum principal stress,  max , and maximum shear stress,  max ) at the dentin side of
dentin/composite interfaces loaded in tension (left) or shear, using a 0.2 mm chisel applied at 0.2 mm from the interface
(right). Line A–B indicates the diameter of the bonding area.
 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 6 ( 2 0 1 0 ) e38–e49 e43

Fig. 6 – Average failure mode distribution (in %) according

to bonding substrate and testing mode obtained from 37
studies published between 2007 and 2009. Only data where Fig. 7 – Bond strength averages (in MPa) of the adhesive
adhesive was applied following manufacturers’ systems according to the testing method used. Error bars
instructions were included. Numbers on top of each correspond to ±1 SD. In the same test, columns with the
column indicate the number of publications used to same letter are not statistically different (p > 0.05).
calculate the averages.

ter) and while one did not report differences among crosshead
speeds ranging from 0.5 to 5.0 mm/min [140], the other found
strength. However, the area subjected stress levels close to the
statistically higher bond strengths for crosshead speeds of 5.0
maximum is much larger than in the shear test (Fig. 5). The
and 10.0 mm/min compared to 0.1, 0.5 and 1.0 mm/min [141].
height of the composite cylinder in the tensile test does not
Such inconsistencies found for both shear and tensile tests
influence stress distribution or magnitude if kept above 2 mm
may be explained by differences among testing assemblies
[9].
and/or the brittle nature of dental adhesives and composites.
The comparison of crosshead speeds among testing assem-
4.2. Crosshead speed
blies with different compliance levels is problematic and less
meaningful than comparing load rates. Also, it has been ver-
Due to the viscoelastic nature of polymers and compos-
ified that at small strains, the strain rate variation had a
ites, it could be expected that bond strength tests would
negligible effect on the measured stress values of amorphous
present some strain rate sensitivity. Experimental obser-
polymers [142]. Nevertheless, it is important to emphasize that
vations revealed that composite yield strength and elastic
among the studies described, only one reported differences in
modulus increase at higher strain rates [137], possibly due to
bond strength within the crosshead speed range proposed in
secondary molecular processes. At high strain rates, the poly-
the ISO/TS 11405 (0.75 ± 0.30 mm/min).
mer chains become stiffer and molecular mobility is reduced
[138]. Determining the actual strain rate (unit: mm/mm s or
s−1 ) requires an extensometer and depending upon the spec- 5. Incidence of cohesive failures
imen geometry it may not be feasible. Therefore, specimen
loading is usually expressed in terms of crosshead speed, in As mentioned above, reporting bond strength in terms of
mm/min. nominal stress values is questionable due to the heteroge-
Studies evaluating the influence of crosshead speed on neous stress distribution and also due to the occurrence of
“macro” shear and tensile bond strength are few and show cohesive failures both in the dental substrate and the resin
contradictory results. Coincidentally, two of them used the composite. Defining categories for classification of failure
same adhesive system and composite (Single Bond and Z100, modes of debonded specimens is a complicated task and,
3M ESPE). However, bonding areas, specimen storage times in some instances, the limit between mixed and cohesive
and test assemblies were different. One study used the failure becomes merely subjective. Fig. 6 shows the failure
Single-Plane Shear Test Assembly (SPSTA) on specimens with mode distribution observed in 37 studies recently published
5-mm diameter bonding areas, finding no statistically signif- according to the bonding substrate and the loading mode
icant differences among crosshead speeds between 0.5 and [31–34,37,39–41,43,45,64,73,76–80,84,86–88,95–99,101,102,108,
10 mm/min [131]. The other study used a knife-edge steel 109,117,118,120,121,123–125]. Overall, 44% of the specimens
rod to test specimens with 3-mm diameter bonding area and failed exclusively along the bonded interface, while 31%
found statistically higher bond strengths for those loaded at presented mixed failures and 25% presented predominantly
1.0 and 5.0 mm/min compared to 0.5 and 0.75 mm/min [139]. (i.e., more than 75% of the bonding area) cohesive failure
A similar scenario is observed with two studies that eval- either at the composite or the dental substrate.
uated the effect of crosshead speed on tensile bond strength. Rather than an indication of strong bonding, cohesive
Both used similar bonding areas (3.6 and 4.0 mm in diame- failure is explained by the mechanics of the test and the brit-
e44 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 6 ( 2 0 1 0 ) e38–e49

Fig. 8 – Failure mode distributions (in %) observed under 10–30× magnification for each adhesive system, according to the
testing method. Top, left: Adper SE Plus; top, right: Adper Single Bond 2; bottom, left: Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose;
bottom, right: pooled data.

tleness of the materials involved. In the shear test, tensile (Adper Single Bond 2) and a self-etch system (Adper SE Plus),
stress concentration in dentin near the crack tip causes the all from the same manufacturer (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA),
failure to propagate into the substrate. Versluis et al. [134] ver- were tested for bond strength to superficial bovine dentin.
ified both experimentally and using a failure accumulation Except for the micro-tensile specimens, teeth were embed-
computer model a tendency for dentin failure to increase at ded in PVC cylinders using self-cure acrylic, with the dentin
lower crosshead speeds, thicker adhesive layers and moving surface kept 2 mm above the embedding material. Dentin
the point of load application away from the bonded interface. roughness was standardized using a 600-grit SiC paper. For
Dentin pull-out was also associated with high bond strength macro shear and tensile tests (n = 10), a 3-mm diameter area
values, although the correlation for individual specimens was was delimited with adhesive tape. After adhesive application
weak. following manufacturers’ directions, a 3-mm height truncated
A recent study evaluating the tensile bond strength of five cone was built using a microhybrid composite (LLis, FGM Pro-
resin cements to dentin reported a strong positive correlation dutos Odontológicos, Joinville, Brazil) with the smaller base
between strength values and the area of cohesive failure in (3-mm diameter) contacting the adhesive layer. Micro-shear
resin observed in mixed mode failures, evaluated using scan- specimens (n = 5) were built by inserting the composite into
ning electron microscopy [31]. Bonding area has also been segments of Tygon tubing (Saint-Gobain Performance Plas-
associated with the incidence of cohesive failures. Specimens tics, Akron, OH, USA), four per tooth, with internal diameter
with rectangular cross-sectional areas larger than 7.17 mm2 of 0.76 and 0.4 mm in height, and photo-activating it in con-
built using a self-etching primer system (Clearfil Liner Bond 2, tact with the adhesive-coated dentin. For the micro-tensile
Kuraray) and loaded in tension showed exclusively cohesive specimens (n = 5), teeth crowns were sectioned perpendicu-
failures in dentin. Between 2.31 and 7.17 mm2 , both cohesive larly to the exposed dentin surface and the resulting dentin
and adhesive failures were observed [13]. area received the adhesive application. Such modification in
dentin tubule orientation was necessary to increase the dentin
thickness available for specimen sectioning. A 4-mm high
6. A comparison between macro and micro composite block was built onto the dentin surface. All spec-
bond strength tests imens were stored in distilled water at 37 ◦ C for 24 h prior
to testing. For the micro-tensile test, stick-shaped specimens
In order to verify how “macro” bond strength tests compare to 0.8–1.0 mm2 (five per tooth) were cut using a diamond wafering
their “micro” counterparts in terms of material ranking, inci- blade immediately prior to testing. For macro- and micro-
dence of cohesive failures and data scattering, a three-step shear testing, a 200-␮m knife-edge chisel placed in contact
(Adper Scothbond Multi-Purpose), a two-step etch-and-rinse with the dentin surface was used to debond the composite
 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 6 ( 2 0 1 0 ) e38–e49 e45

truncated cones/cylinders. Tensile test used a clamp that con- mens loaded in shear, compared to tension. Among the shear
tacted three-quarters of the truncated cone circumference. methods, the use of the chisel as a loading device causes
Articulated joints were used to assure that the bonded inter- the most severe stress concentration, which is also supported
face was perpendicular to the loading axis. For micro-tensile by experimental findings showing lower bond strengths com-
testing, Geraldeli’s jigs were used [143]. All tests were carried pared to other shear loading methods, such as the wire loop
out at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Specimen failure or the flat rod. Within the limits suggested in the ISO/TR
mode was assessed under a stereomicroscope at 10–30× mag- 11405, crosshead speed seems to have little influence on bond
nification. Results were submitted to one-way ANOVA/Tukey strength results. Finally, in view of the many aspects affecting
test at a pre-set global significance level of 5%. the results of “macro” bond strength tests, in order to allow
Bond strength results are displayed in Fig. 7. As discussed for a more judicious comparison among studies researchers
above, the reduction in bonding area corresponded to an must provide a thorough description of the specimen design
increase in bond strength values. “Macro” tests displayed a and test configuration.
similar range of values, between 5.6 and 11.5 MPa. Both shear
tests ranked the adhesive systems similarly, while for the ten-
sile tests there was an inversion between the two systems with Acknowledgements
the highest bond strengths. Coefficients of variation ranged
between 28 and 36% for shear, 21 and 40% for micro-shear, Authors would like to express their gratitude to FGM Produtos
32 and 38% for tension and 25 and 64% for the micro-tensile Odontológicos and 3M ESPE for kindly donating the materials
test. The higher scattering displayed by the self-etch system used in the experimental section of this review.
in both “micro” tests may be explained by the association of
lower bond strength with a more technique-sensitive speci-
men preparation. references
Failure mode distribution is shown in Fig. 8. Only the adhe-
sive system that achieved the lowest bond strength values in
all testing modes did not present cohesive failures. For the [1] Finger WJ. Dentin bonding agents. Relevance of in vitro
other two systems, cohesive failures were more frequent with investigations. Am J Dent 1988;1:184–8 [Special issue].
the “macro” compared to the “micro” bond strength tests. [2] Sudsangiam S, van Noort R. Do dentin bond strength tests
Pooled data revealed the incidence of cohesive failures of 45% serve a useful purpose? J Adhes Dent 1999;1:57–67.
for shear, 28% for tension, 13% for micro-shear and 12% for [3] Hebling J, Castro FL, Costa CA. Adhesive performance of
dentin bonding agents applied in vivo and in vitro. Effect of
micro-tensile test. It must be emphasized, though, that under
intrapulpal pressure and dentin depth. J Biomed Mater Res
higher magnification, the incidence of mixed and cohesive B: Appl Biomater 2007;83:295–303.
failures may increase for all testing modes. [4] Frankenberger R, Kramer N, Lohbauer U, Nikolaenko SA,
Reich SM. Marginal integrity: is the clinical performance of
bonded restorations predictable in vitro? J Adhes Dent
7. Summary 2007;9(Suppl. 1):107–16.
[5] Peumans M, Kanumilli P, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K,
Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Clinical effectiveness of
The need for tests capable of accurately assessing interfacial
contemporary adhesives: a systematic review of current
bond strength is clear. With that in mind, some would argue clinical trials. Dent Mater 2005;21:864–81.
that the fracture mechanics approach is the optimal way to [6] Shono Y, Ogawa T, Terashita M, Carvalho RM, Pashley EL,
achieve “controlled” crack propagation at the bonded inter- Pashley DH. Regional measurement of resin–dentin
face to assess adhesion [144,145]. But this method is more bonding as an array. J Dent Res 1999;78:699–705.
complex and time consuming than others for measuring bond [7] Shono Y, Terashita M, Pashley EL, Brewer PD, Pashley DH.
Effects of cross-sectional area on resin–enamel tensile
strength to the dental substrate. Thus, in spite of their inher-
bond strength. Dent Mater 1997;13:290–6.
ent shortcomings, “macro” bond strength tests will continue [8] Hashimoto M, Tay F, Svizero NR, De Gee AJ, Feilzer AJ, Sano
to be used for evaluating the adhesion of dental materials to H, et al. The effect of common errors os sealing ability of
tooth structure due to their simplicity. total-etch adhesives. Dent Mater 2006;22:560–8.
This review discussed aspects influencing stress distribu- [9] Van Noort R, Noroozi S, Howard IC, Cardew G. A critique of
tion that may impact dentin and enamel bond strength results bond strength measurements. J Dent 1989;17:61–7.
and failure modes of “macro” shear and tensile bond strength [10] DeHoff PH, Anusavice KJ, Wang Z. Three-dimensional finite
element analysis of the shear bond test. Dent Mater
tests. Some of the information is likely applicable to “micro”
1995;11:126–31.
bond strength tests as well. In terms of specimen design, [11] Van Noort R, Cardew GE, Howard IC, Noroozi S. The effect
the effect of the elastic modulus of the second substrate, of local interfacial geometry on the measurement of the
typically resin composite, on test results seems consistent tensile bond strength to dentin. J Dent Res 1991;70:889–
among experimental studies, as well as with FEA data, i.e., a 93.
higher modulus mismatch between substrates increases the [12] Pashley DH, Sano H, Ciucchi B, Yoshiyama M, Carvalho RM.
Adhesion testing of dentin bonding agents: a review. Dent
stress concentration at the interface resulting in lower bond
Mater 1995;11:117–25.
strengths. The influence of bonding area, on the other hand,
[13] Sano H, Shono T, Sonoda H, Takatsu T, Ciucchi B, Carvalho
remains undefined, though at least a trend for increasing R, et al. Relationship between surface area for adhesion
bond strength values with the use of smaller bonding areas and tensile bond strength – evaluation of a micro-tensile
does exist. Stress concentration is much more severe in speci- bond test. Dent Mater 1994;10:236–40.
e46 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 6 ( 2 0 1 0 ) e38–e49

[14] Phrukkanon S, Burrow MF, Tyas MJ. Effect of cross-sectional [35] Ayad MF, Fahmy NZ, Rosenstiel SF. Effect of surface
surface area on bond strengths between resin and dentin. treatment on roughness and bond strength of a
Dent Mater 1998;14:120–8. heat-pressed ceramic. J Prosthet Dent 2008;99:123–30.
[15] McDonough WG, Antonucci JM, He J, Shimada Y, Chiang [36] Barbosa CM, Sasaki RT, Florio FM, Basting RT. Influence of
MY, Schumacher GE, et al. A microshear test to measure time on bond strength after bleaching with 35% hydrogen
bond strengths of dentin–polymer interfaces. Biomaterials peroxide. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008;9:81–8.
2002;23:3603–8. [37] Barkmeier WW, Erickson RL, Kimmes NS, Latta MA,
[16] Poitevin A, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Coutinho E, Wilwerding TM. Effect of enamel etching time on
Peumans M, Lambrechts P, et al. Critical analysis of the roughness and bond strength. Oper Dent 2009;34:217–22.
influence of different parameters on the microtensile bond [38] Benetti AR, Asmussen E, Peutzfeldt A. Influence of curing
strength of adhesives to dentin. J Adhes Dent 2008;10: rate of resin composite on the bond strength to dentin.
7–16. Oper Dent 2007;32:144–8.
[17] Soares CJ, Soares PV, Santos-Filho PC, Armstrong SR. [39] Borges MA, Matos IC, Dias KR. Influence of two self-etching
Microtensile specimen attachment and shape – finite primer systems on enamel adhesion. Braz Dent J
element analysis. J Dent Res 2008;87:89–93. 2007;18:113–8.
[18] Betamar N, Cardew G, Van Noort R. Influence of specimen [40] Borsatto MC, Corona SA, de Araujo FP, de Souza-Gabriel AE,
designs on the microtensile bond strength to dentin. J Pecora JD, Palma-Dibb RG. Effect of Er:YAG laser on tensile
Adhes Dent 2007;9:159–68. bond strength of sealants in primary teeth. J Dent Child
[19] Retief DH. Standardizing laboratory adhesion tests. Am J (Chic) 2007;74:104–8.
Dent 1991;4:231–6. [41] Brulat N, Rocca JP, Leforestier E, Fiorucci G, Nammour S,
[20] Oilo G. Bond strength testing – what does it mean? Int Dent Bertrand MF. Shear bond strength of self-etching adhesive
J 1993;43:492–8. systems to Er:YAG-laser-prepared dentin. Lasers Med Sci
[21] Watanabe I, Nakabayashi N. Measurement methods for 2009;24:53–7.
adhesion to dentine: the current status in Japan. J Dent [42] Bulucu B, Ozsezer E. Influence of light-curing units on
1994;22:67–72. dentin bond strength after bleaching. J Adhes Dent
[22] Technical specification ISO/TS 11405. Dental materials – 2007;9:183–7.
testing of adhesion to tooth structure. Switzerland; 2003. [43] Cardoso MV, Moretto SG, de Carvalho RC, Russo EM.
[23] al-Salehi SK, Burke FJ. Methods used in dentin bonding Influence of intrapulpal pressure simulation on the bond
tests: an analysis of 50 investigations on bond strength. strength of adhesive systems to dentin. Braz Oral Res
Quintessence Int 1997;28:717–23. 2008;22:170–5.
[24] Burke FJ, Hussain A, Nolan L, Fleming GJ. Methods used in [44] Carrieri TC, de Freitas PM, Navarro RS, Eduardo Cde P, Mori
dentine bonding tests: an analysis of 102 investigations on M. Adhesion of composite luting cement to
bond strength. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent Er:YAG-laser-treated dentin. Lasers Med Sci 2007;22:
2008;16:158–65. 165–70.
[25] Leloup G, D’Hoore W, Bouter D, Degrange M, Vreven J. [45] Cekic-Nagas I, Ergun G, Tezvergil A, Vallittu PK, Lassila LV.
Meta-analytical review of factors involved in dentin Effect of fiber-reinforced composite at the interface on
adherence. J Dent Res 2001;80:1605–14. bonding of resin core system to dentin. Dent Mater J
[26] Oilo G, Olsson S. Tensile bond strength of dentin adhesives: 2008;27:736–43.
a comparison of materials and methods. Dent Mater [46] Chaiyabutr Y, McGowan S, Phillips KM, Kois JC, Giordano
1990;6:138–44. RA. The effect of hydrofluoric acid surface treatment and
[27] Dickens SH, Milos MF. Relationship of dentin shear bond bond strength of a zirconia veneering ceramic. J Prosthet
strengths to different laboratory test designs. Am J Dent Dent 2008;100:194–202.
2002;15:185–92. [47] Czarnecka B, Deregowska-Nosowicz P, Limanowska-Shaw
[28] Pecora N, Yaman P, Dennison J, Herrero A. Comparison of H, Nicholson JW. Shear bond strengths of glass-ionomer
shear bond strength relative to two testing devices. J cements to sound and to prepared carious dentine. J Mater
Prosthet Dent 2002;88:511–5. Sci: Mater Med 2007;18:845–9.
[29] Sinhoreti MA, Consani S, De Goes MF, Sobrinho LC, [48] D’Arcangelo C, Vanini L. Effect of three surface treatments
Knowles JC. Influence of loading types on the shear on the adhesive properties of indirect composite
strength of the dentin–resin interface bonding. J Mater Sci: restorations. J Adhes Dent 2007;9:319–26.
Mater Med 2001;12:39–44. [49] da Costa CC, Oshima HM, Costa Filho LC. Evaluation of
[30] Aizawa K, Kameyama A, Kato J, Oda Y, Hirai Y. Influence of shear bond strength and interfacial micromorphology of
free-hand vs uniform irradiation on tensile bond strength direct restorations in primary and permanent teeth – an in
in Er:YAG-lased dentin. J Adhes Dent 2008;10:295–9. vitro study. Gen Dent 2008;56:85–93 [quiz 94–85, 111–112].
[31] Al-Assaf K, Chakmakchi M, Palaghias G, Karanika-Kouma [50] Dantas DC, Ribeiro AI, Lima LH, de Lima MG, Guenes GM,
A, Eliades G. Interfacial characteristics of adhesive luting Braz AK, et al. Influence of water storage time on the bond
resins and composites with dentine. Dent Mater strength of etch-and-rinse and self-etching adhesive
2007;23:829–39. systems. Braz Dent J 2008;19:219–23.
[32] Ando S, Watanabe T, Tsubota K, Yoshida T, Irokawa A, [51] Di Nicolo R, Shintome LK, Myaki SI, Nagayassu MP. Bond
Takamizawa T, et al. Effect of adhesive application methods strength of resin modified glass ionomer cement to
on bond strength to bovine enamel. J Oral Sci 2008;50:181–6. primary dentin after cutting with different bur types and
[33] Ariyoshi M, Nikaido T, Okada A, Foxton RM, Tagami J. dentin conditioning. J Appl Oral Sci 2007;15:459–64.
Dentin bond strengths of three adhesive/composite core [52] El-Araby AM, Talic YF. The effect of thermocycling on the
systems using different curing units. Dent Mater J adhesion of self-etching adhesives on dental enamel and
2008;27:187–94. dentin. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007;8:17–24.
[34] Asaka Y, Amano S, Rikuta A, Kurokawa H, Miyazaki M, Platt [53] Endo T, Osada T, Finger WJ, Hoffmann M, Kanehira M,
JA, et al. Influence of thermal cycling on dentin bond Komatsu M. Effect of oxygen inhibition of self-etching
strengths of single-step self-etch adhesive systems. Oper adhesives on enamel–dentin polymer bond. J Adhes Dent
Dent 2007;32:73–8. 2007;9:33–8.
 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 6 ( 2 0 1 0 ) e38–e49 e47

[54] Erhardt MC, Shinohara MS, Bedran-Russo AK, Amaral CM, [71] Holderegger C, Sailer I, Schuhmacher C, Schlapfer R,
Pimenta LA. Effect of long-term water storage on Hammerle C, Fischer J. Shear bond strength of resin
etch-and-rinse and self-etching resin–dentin bond cements to human dentin. Dent Mater 2008;24:944–50.
strengths. Gen Dent 2008;56:372–7 [quiz 378–379, 400]. [72] Huh JB, Kim JH, Chung MK, Lee HY, Choi YG, Shim JS. The
[55] Erickson RL, De Gee AJ, Feilzer AJ. Effect of pre-etching effect of several dentin desensitizers on shear bond
enamel on fatigue of self-etch adhesive bonds. Dent Mater strength of adhesive resin luting cement using self-etching
2008;24:117–23. primer. J Dent 2008;36:1025–32.
[56] Erkut S, Kucukesmen HC, Eminkahyagil N, Imirzalioglu P, [73] Ikeda M, Tsubota K, Takamizawa T, Yoshida T, Miyazaki M,
Karabulut E. Influence of previous provisional cementation Platt JA. Bonding durability of single-step adhesives to
on the bond strength between two definitive resin-based previously acid-etched dentin. Oper Dent 2008;33:702–9.
luting and dentin bonding agents and human dentin. Oper [74] Ikemura K, Tay FR, Nishiyama N, Pashley DH, Endo T.
Dent 2007;32:84–93. Multi-purpose bonding performance of newly synthesized
[57] Esteves-Oliveira M, Zezell DM, Apel C, Turbino ML, Aranha phosphonic acid monomers. Dent Mater J 2007;26:
AC, Eduardo Cde P, et al. Bond strength of self-etching 105–15.
primer to bur cut, Er, Cr:YSGG, and Er:YAG lased dental [75] Ishii T, Ohara N, Oshima A, Koizumi H, Nakazawa M,
surfaces. Photomed Laser Surg 2007;25:373–80. Masuno T, et al. Bond strength to bovine dentin of a
[58] Fawzy AS, Amer MA, El-Askary FS. Sodium hypochlorite as composite core build-up material combined with four
dentin pretreatment for etch-and-rinse single-bottle and different bonding agents. J Oral Sci 2008;50:329–33.
two-step self-etching adhesives: atomic force microscope [76] Kameyama A, Aizawa K, Kato J, Hirai Y. Tensile bond
and tensile bond strength evaluation. J Adhes Dent strength of single-step self-etch adhesives to Er:YAG
2008;10:135–44. laser-irradiated dentin. Photomed Laser Surg 2009.
[59] Fuchigami K, Ikemura K, Ichizawa K. Novel, multi-purpose, [77] Kameyama A, Kato J, Aizawa K, Suemori T, Nakazawa Y,
PMMA-type adhesive resin with newly synthesized Ogata T, et al. Tensile bond strength of one-step self-etch
microcapsule of radical polymerization initiators. Dent adhesives to Er:YAG laser-irradiated and non-irradiated
Mater J 2008;27:35–48. enamel. Dent Mater J 2008;27:386–91.
[60] Furukawa M, Shigetani Y, Finger WJ, Hoffmann M, Kanehira [78] Kaya AD, Turkun M, Arici M. Reversal of compromised
M, Endo T, et al. All-in-one self-etch model adhesives: bonding in bleached enamel using antioxidant gel. Oper
HEMA-free and without phase separation. J Dent Dent 2008;33:441–7.
2008;36:402–8. [79] Korkmaz Y, Attar N. Dentin bond strength of composites
[61] Furuse AY, Peutzfeldt A, Asmussen E. Effect of evaporation with self-etching adhesives using LED curing lights. J
of solvents from one-step, self-etching adhesives. J Adhes Contemp Dent Pract 2007;8:34–42.
Dent 2008;10:35–9. [80] Korkmaz Y, Baseren M. Effect of antibacterial varnishes
[62] Gernhardt CR, Bekes K, Hahn P, Schaller HG. Influence of applied to root dentin on shear bond strength of
pressure application before light-curing on the bond tooth-colored restorative materials. Oper Dent
strength of adhesive systems to dentin. Braz Dent J 2008;33:65–71.
2008;19:62–7. [81] Krifka S, Borzsonyi A, Koch A, Hiller KA, Schmalz G, Friedl
[63] Gogos C, Stavrianos C, Kolokouris I, Economides N, KH. Bond strength of adhesive systems to dentin and
Papadoyannis I. Shear bond strength of two resin cements enamel – human vs. bovine primary teeth in vitro. Dent
to human root dentin using three dentin bonding agents. Mater 2008;24:888–94.
Oper Dent 2007;32:31–6. [82] Kurokawa R, Finger WJ, Hoffmann M, Endo T, Kanehira M,
[64] Gokce B, Comlekoglu ME, Ozpinar B, Turkun M, Kaya AD. Komatsu M, et al. Interactions of self-etch adhesives with
Effect of antioxidant treatment on bond strength of a luting resin composites. J Dent 2007;35:923–9.
resin to bleached enamel. J Dent 2008;36:780–5. [83] Kusunoki M, Itoh K, Utsumi Y, Hisamitsu H. Priming effects
[65] Gokce K, Aykor A, Ersoy M, Ozel E, Soyman M. Effect of of triethylene glycol and triethylene glycol
phosphoric acid etching and self-etching primer monomethacrylate on dentin bonding. Dent Mater J
application methods on dentinal shear bond strength. J 2007;26:474–80.
Adhes Dent 2008;10:345–9. [84] Lee BS, Lin PY, Chen MH, Hsieh TT, Lin CP, Lai JY, et al.
[66] Gomes-Silva JM, Torres CP, Contente MM, Oliveira MA, Tensile bond strength of Er, Cr:YSGG laser-irradiated
Palma-Dibb RG, Borsatto MC. Bond strength of a human dentin and analysis of dentin–resin interface. Dent
pit-and-fissure sealant associated to etch-and-rinse and Mater 2007;23:570–8.
self-etching adhesive systems to saliva-contaminated [85] Lee JJ, Nettey-Marbell A, Cook Jr A, Pimenta LA, Leonard R,
enamel: individual vs. simultaneous light curing. Braz Dent Ritter AV. Using extracted teeth for research: the effect of
J 2008;19:341–7. storage medium and sterilization on dentin bond
[67] Goncalves M, Corona SA, Palma-Dibb RG, Pecora JD. strengths. J Am Dent Assoc 2007;138:1599–603.
Influence of pulse repetition rate of Er:YAG laser and dentin [86] Leevailoj C, Ua-wutthikrerk P, Poolthong S. Shear bond
depth on tensile bond strength of dentin–resin interface. J strength of dual-cured and self-cured resin composites to
Biomed Mater Res A 2008;86:477–82. dentin using different bonding agents and techniques.
[68] Gurgan S, Kiremitci A, Cakir FY, Gorucu J, Alpaslan T, Yazici Oper Dent 2007;32:149–59.
E, et al. Shear bond strength of composite bonded to [87] Lepri TP, Souza-Gabriel AE, Atoui JA, Palma-Dibb RG, Pecora
erbium:yttrium–aluminum-garnet laser-prepared dentin. JD, Milori Corona SA. Shear bond strength of a sealant to
Photomed Laser Surg 2008;26:495–500. contaminated-enamel surface: influence of
[69] Gurgan S, Kiremitci A, Cakir FY, Yazici E, Gorucu J, erbium:yttrium–aluminum-garnet laser pretreatment. J
Gutknecht N. Shear bond strength of composite bonded to Esthet Restor Dent 2008;20:386–92 [discussion 393–384].
erbium:yttrium–aluminum-garnet laser-prepared dentin. [88] Luhrs AK, Guhr S, Schilke R, Borchers L, Geurtsen W, Gunay
Lasers Med Sci 2009;24:117–22. H. Shear bond strength of self-etch adhesives to enamel
[70] Habekost Lde V, Camacho GB, Demarco FF, Powers JM. with additional phosphoric acid etching. Oper Dent
Tensile bond strength and flexural modulus of resin 2008;33:155–62.
cements – influence on the fracture resistance of teeth [89] Mahmoud SH, Abdel kader Sobh M, Zaher AR, Ghazy MH,
restored with ceramic inlays. Oper Dent 2007;32:488–95. Abdelaziz KM. Bonding of resin composite to tooth
e48 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 6 ( 2 0 1 0 ) e38–e49

structure of uremic patients receiving hemodialysis: shear Ta2 O5 /SiO2 nanoparticles in methacrylic matrices. J Dent
bond strength and acid-etch patterns. J Adhes Dent 2008;36:579–87.
2008;10:335–8. [108] Shinkai K, Suzuki S, Katoh Y. Effect of light intensity for
[90] Masri M, Pilo R, Brosh T. The influence of convergence angle adhesives on shear bond strength to dentin. Dent Mater J
and dentin micromorphology on shear bond strength of 2008;27:660–5.
adhesive resin luting cement. J Adhes Dent 2008;10:277–84. [109] Silva PC, Goncalves M, Nascimento TN, Centola AL. Effect
[91] Metz MJ, Cochran MA, Matis BA, Gonzalez C, Platt JA, Pund of air abrasion on tensile bond strength of a single-bottle
MR. Clinical evaluation of 15% carbamide peroxide on the adhesive/indirect composite system to enamel. Braz Dent J
surface microhardness and shear bond strength of human 2007;18:45–8.
enamel. Oper Dent 2007;32:427–36. [110] Soares CJ, Branco CA, Soares PBF, Fonseca RB, Carlo HL,
[92] Mitra SB, Lee CY, Bui HT, Tantbirojn D, Rusin RP. Long-term Fernandes Neto AJ. Effect of blood contamination during
adhesion and mechanism of bonding of a paste-liquid adhesive restorative procedures on dentin–resin cement
resin-modified glass-ionomer. Dent Mater 2009;25:459–66. shear bond strength. Braz J Oral Sci 2007;6:1320–5.
[93] Moshaverinia A, Ansari S, Moshaverinia M, Roohpour N, [111] Soderholm KJ, Soares F, Argumosa M, Loveland C, Bimstein
Darr JA, Rehman I. Effects of incorporation of E, Guelmann M. Shear bond strength of one etch-and-rinse
hydroxyapatite and fluoroapatite nanobioceramics into and five self-etching dental adhesives when used by six
conventional glass ionomer cements (GIC). Acta Biomater operators. Acta Odontol Scand 2008;66:243–9.
2008;4:432–40. [112] Souza-Zaroni WC, Seixas LC, Ciccone-Nogueira JC,
[94] Muraguchi K, Shigenobu S, Suzuki S, Tanaka T. Chimello DT, Palma-Dibb RG. Tensile bond strength of
Improvement of bonding to bleached bovine tooth surfaces different adhesive systems to enamel and dentin. Braz
by ascorbic acid treatment. Dent Mater J 2007;26: Dent J 2007;18:124–8.
875–81. [113] Sugizaki J, Morigami M, Uno S, Yamada T. Clinical
[95] Nam KY, Kim JB, Jang BC, Kwon TY, Kim KH. Effects of evaluation and interfacial morphology observation of Xeno
dentin bonding agents on bonding durability of a flowable III self-etching resin bonding and restorative system. Dent
composite to dentin. Dent Mater J 2007;26:224–31. Mater J 2007;26:602–7.
[96] Omae M, Inoue M, Itota T, Finger WJ, Tanaka K, Yamamoto [114] Susin AH, Vasconcellos WA, Saad JR, Oliveira Junior OB.
K, et al. Effect of a desensitizing agent containing Tensile bond strength of self-etching versus total-etching
glutaraldehyde and HEMA on bond strength to Er:YAG adhesive systems under different dentinal substrate
laser-irradiated dentine. J Dent 2007;35:398–402. conditions. Braz Oral Res 2007;21:81–6.
[97] Oto T, Yasuda G, Tsubota K, Kurokawa H, Miyazaki M, Platt [115] Taira Y, Soeno K, Atsuta M. Microperoxidase primer
JA. Influence of power density on polymerization behavior promotes adhesion of butylborane-polymerized resin to
and bond strengths of dual-cured resin direct core dentin. J Biomed Mater Res B: Appl Biomater 2007;81:111–5.
foundation systems. Oper Dent 2009;34:192–9. [116] Thomsen KB, Peutzfeldt A. Resin composites: strength of
[98] Paradella TC, Fava M. Bond strength of adhesive systems to the bond to dentin versus mechanical properties. Clin Oral
human tooth enamel. Braz Oral Res 2007;21:4–9. Invest 2007;11:45–9.
[99] Pires-de-Souza Fde C, Marco FF, Casemiro LA, Panzeri H. [117] Tjandrawinata R, Irie M, Suzuki K. Twenty-four hour
Desensitizing bioactive agents improves bond strength of flexural and shear bond strengths of flowable light-cured
indirect resin-cemented restorations: preliminary results. J composites: a comparison analysis using Weibull statistics.
Appl Oral Sci 2007;15:120–6. Dent Mater J 2007;26:589–97.
[100] Piwowarczyk A, Bender R, Ottl P, Lauer HC. Long-term bond [118] Toman M, Cal E, Turkun M, Ertugrul F. Bond strength of
between dual-polymerizing cementing agents and human glass–ceramics on the fluorosed enamel surfaces. J Dent
hard dental tissue. Dent Mater 2007;23:211–7. 2008;36:281–6.
[101] Ritter AV, Ghaname E, Leonard RH. The influence of dental [119] Toman M, Toksavul S, Akin A. Bond strength of
unit waterline cleaners on composite-to-dentin bond all-ceramics to tooth structure: using new luting systems. J
strengths. J Am Dent Assoc 2007;138:985–91 [quiz; Adhes Dent 2008;10:373–8.
1022–1023]. [120] Torres CP, Chinelatti MA, Gomes-Silva JM, Borsatto MC,
[102] Ritter AV, Ghaname E, Pimenta LA. Dentin and enamel Palma-Dibb RG. Tensile bond strength to primary dentin
bond strengths of dual-cure composite luting agents used after different etching times. J Dent Child (Chic)
with dual-cure dental adhesives. J Dent 2009;37:59–64. 2007;74:113–7.
[103] Sarac D, Bulucu B, Sarac YS, Kulunk S. The effect of [121] Torres CP, Gomes-Silva JM, Borsatto MC, Barroso JM, Pecora
dentin-cleaning agents on resin cement bond strength to JD, Palma-Dibb RG. Shear bond strength of self-etching and
dentin. J Am Dent Assoc 2008;139:751–8. total-etch adhesive systems to Er:YAG laser-irradiated
[104] Sasaki LH, Lobo PD, Moriyama Y, Watanabe IS, Villaverde primary dentin. J Dent Child (Chic) 2009;76:
AB, Tanaka CS, et al. Tensile bond strength and SEM 67–73.
analysis of enamel etched with Er:YAG laser and [122] Torres CRG, Pinto LQ, Leonel AG, Pucci CR, Borges AB.
phosphoric acid: a comparative study in vitro. Braz Dent J Interaction between total-etch and self-etch adhesives and
2008;19:57–61. conventional and self-adhesive resin cements. Braz J Oral
[105] Sassi JF, dos Reis Batista A, Ciccone-Nogueira JC, Corona Sci 2007;6:1376–82.
SAM, Palma-Dibb RG. Influence of light-curing unit systems [123] Tseng WY, Chen MH, Lu HH, Lin CW, Hsieh TT, Chen CH, et
on shear bond strength and marginal microlekage of al. Tensile bond strength of Er, Cr:YSGG laser-irradiated
composite resin restorations. Mater Res 2008;11:69– human dentin to composite inlays with two resin cements.
73. Dent Mater J 2007;26:746–55.
[106] Schmidlin PR, Siebenmann J, Kocher P, Seemann R, Attin T, [124] Unlu N, Cobankara FK, Ozer F. Effect of elapsed time
Bindl A. Effects of de- and remineralization of dentin on following bleaching on the shear bond strength of
bond strengths yielded by one-, three-, and four-step composite resin to enamel. J Biomed Mater Res B: Appl
adhesives. J Adhes Dent 2008;10:119–26. Biomater 2008;84:363–8.
[107] Schulz H, Schimmoeller B, Pratsinis SE, Salz U, Bock T. [125] Watanabe T, Tsubota K, Takamizawa T, Kurokawa H, Rikuta
Radiopaque dental adhesives: dispersion of flame-made A, Ando S, et al. Effect of prior acid etching on bonding
 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 6 ( 2 0 1 0 ) e38–e49 e49

durability of single-step adhesives. Oper Dent [136] Placido E, Meira JB, Lima RG, Muench A, de Souza RM,
2008;33:426–33. Ballester RY. Shear versus micro-shear bond strength test: a
[126] Yazici AR, Celik C, Ozgunaltay G, Dayangac B. Bond finite element stress analysis. Dent Mater 2007;23:1086–92.
strength of different adhesive systems to dental hard [137] Thiruppukuzhi SV, Sun CT. Models for the
tissues. Oper Dent 2007;32:166–72. strain-rate-dependent behavior of polymer composites.
[127] Yazici AR, Karaman E, Ertan A, Ozgunaltay G, Dayangac B. Compos Sci Technol 2001;61:1–12.
Effect of different pretreatment methods on dentin bond [138] Guo Y, Li Y. Quasi-static/dynamic response of SiO2 -epoxy
strength of a one-step self-etch adhesive. J Contemp Dent nanocomposites. Mater Sci Eng A 2007;458:330–5.
Pract 2009;10:41–8. [139] Hara AT, Pimenta LA, Rodrigues Jr AL. Influence of
[128] Yesilyurt C, Bulucu B, Sezen O, Bulut G, Celik D. Bond cross-head speed on resin–dentin shear bond strength.
strengths of two conventional glass-ionomer cements to Dent Mater 2001;17:165–9.
irradiated and non-irradiated dentin. Dent Mater J [140] Takemori T, Chigira H, Itoh K, Hisamitsu H, Wakumoto S.
2008;27:695–701. Factors affecting tensile bond strength of composite to
[129] Griffith AA. The phenomena of flow and rupture in solids. dentin. Dent Mater 1993;9:136–8.
Philos Trans Roy Soc 1921;221:163–98. [141] Oshida Y, Miyazaki M. Dentin bonding system. Part II: effect
[130] Irwin GR. Analysis of stresses and strains near the end of a of crosshead speed. Bio-Med Mater Eng 1996;6:87–100.
crack traversing a plate. J Appl Mech 1957;24:361–4. [142] Richeton J, Ahzi S, Vecchio KS, Jiang FC, Adharapurapu RR.
[131] Watanabe LG, Marshall GW, Marshall SJ. Variables influence Influence of temperature and strain rate on the mechanical
on shear bond strength testing to dentin. In: Advanced behavior of three amorphous polymers: characterization
Adhesive Dentistry – 3rd International Kuraray and modeling of the compressive yield stress. Int J Solids
Symposium. 1999. p. 75–90. Struct 2006;43:2318–35.
[132] Bianchi J, Bond strength of composite resins to dentin. [143] Perdigao J, Geraldeli S, Carmo AR, Dutra HR. In vivo
Masters thesis. São Paulo: University of São Paulo; 1994. p. influence of residual moisture on microtensile bond
67. strengths of one-bottle adhesives. J Esthet Restor Dent
[133] Hasegawa T, Itoh K, Koike T, Yukitani W, Hisamitsu H, 2002;14:31–8.
Wakumoto S, et al. Effect of mechanical properties of resin [144] Tantbirojn D, Cheng YS, Versluis A, Hodges JS, Douglas WH.
composites on the efficacy of the dentin bonding system. Nominal shear or fracture mechanics in the assessment of
Oper Dent 1999;24:323–30. composite–dentin adhesion? J Dent Res 2000;79:41–8.
[134] Versluis A, Tantbirojn D, Douglas WH. Why do shear bond [145] Ruse ND, Troczynski T, MacEntee MI, Feduik D. Novel
tests pull out dentin? J Dent Res 1997;76:1298–307. fracture toughness test using a notchless triangular prism
[135] Rasmussen ST. Analysis of dental shear bond strength (NTP) specimen. J Biomed Mater Res 1996;31:457–63.
tests, shear or tensile? Int J Adhes Adhes 1996;16:147–54.