In‑vitro comparison of the effect of different bonding strategies on the micro‑shear bond strength of a silorane‑based composite resin to dentin

Pouran Samimi, Vahid Alizadeh, Kamyar Fathpour, Hamid Mazaheri, Vajihosadat Mortazavi


Background: The current study evaluated the micro‑shear bond strengths of a new low‑shrinkage

composite resin to dentin.

Materials and Methods: In this in‑vitro study, 70 extracted premolars were assigned to one of

seven groups (n = 10): Group 1: OptiBond Solo Plus (Opt; Kerr); Group 2: SE Bond (SE; Kuraray);

Group 3: Silorane System Adhesive (SSA; 3M ESPE); Group 4: OptiBond Solo Plus + LS Bond (Opt

LS); Group 5: SE Bond + LS Bond (SE LS); Group 6: OptiBond Solo Plus (Opt Po); and Group 7: SE

Bond (SE Po). Occlusal dentin was exposed and restored with Filtek LS (3M ESPE) in groups 1 to

5 and Point 4 (Kerr) in groups 6 and 7. After thermocycling (1000 cycles at 5/55°C), micro‑shear

bond test was carried out to measure the bond strengths. The results were submitted to analysis

of variance and post hoc Tukeytests (P < 0.05).

Results: Two‑way ANOVA showed no significant differences between the two types of composite

resin (P = 0.187), between bonding agents (P = 0.06) and between composite resin and bonding

agents (P = 0.894). Because P value of bonding agents was near the significance level, one‑way

ANOVA was used separately between the two composite groups. This analysis showed significant

differences between silorane composite resin groups (P = 0.045) and Tukey test showed a significant

difference between Groups 4 and 5 (P = 0.03).

Conclusion: The application of total‑etch and self‑etch methacrylate‑based adhesives with and

without use of a hydrophobic resin coating resulted in acceptable bond strengths.

Key Words: Low, contraction, composite resins, bonding agents, micro, shear, bond, strength

Full Text:



  • There are currently no refbacks.