Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 18, 2026
Standard Test Method ASTM D 7998-19 for the Cohesive Strength Development of Wood Adhesives
Published on: May 17, 2020
Effect of application mode on bonding performance of self-etching adhesives
Werner J Finger1, Chihiro Tani
1Department of Preclinical Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, University of Cologne, D-50931 Cologne, Germany. wjfinger@aol.com
Purpose:
To investigate effects of static vs. dynamic application of self-etching adhesives on bond strengths to enamel and dentin and marginal adaptation in dentin cavities.
Methods:
Products: AC Bond experimental (ACB), AQ Bond (AQB), Fluorobond (FLB), and One-Up Bond F (OUB). Shear bond strengths (SBS) to enamel and dentin were determined on human molars. Primer applications: 1. undisturbed, 2. brush agitation, 3. ultrasonic agitation (Cavitron, lowest setting), or 4. ultrasonic agitation (5 seconds). A 3.5 x 2 mm mold was mounted for application of the resin-based composite Charisma. Six specimens for each condition were stored for 24 hours and loaded until failure.
Statistics:
ANOVA and Scheffé test (P= 0.05). Marginal adaptation was determined in cylindrical dentin cavities (4 x 1.5 mm) 15 minutes after curing of Charisma. Eight specimens/adhesive were produced following application modes 1, 2, and 4. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney showed a P= 0.05.
Results:
Application modes showed no differences in shear bond strengths (SBS) on enamel and dentin by adhesive. SBSs on enamel were not different from those on dentin. Average SBSs for ACB, AQB, FLB, and OUB were 21.0, 21.9, 20.8, and 13.7 MPa. Ranking of adhesives for SBS on enamel and dentin was: AQB, ACB > ACB, FLB > OUB. Application modes had no influence on marginal adaptation. From the 24 cavities each, all ACB, 21 AQB, 13 FLB, and 1 OUB were gap-free. Mann-Whitney ranking: ACB, AQB, FLB > OUB.
