Microtensile Bond Strength of Composite Restorations: Direct vs. Semi-Direct Technique Using the Same Adhesive System

• DOI: 10.3390/jcs9050203
• Publication Date: 2025-04-24T08:04:50Z
• Authors: Paulo J. Palma; Maria A. Neto; Ana Messias; Ana M. Amaro

The main purpose was to evaluate the in vitro adhesion strength of direct and semi-direct composite resin restorations dentin, when same adhesive system is applied, using microtensile testing (μTBS) observe most recurrent types failure different groups. For this study, 16 intact human mandibular molars without microscopic evidence lesions were randomly divided into two test groups, according restoration strategy: (DR) (SR). both restorative strategies, (Clearfil SE Bond 2, Kuraray, Tokyo, Japan) applied dentin surface a two-step self-etching approach with no prior conditioning (Ceram. x Sepctra ST HV, Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC, USA) used as material. indirect cemented cement (Variolink Esthetic LC, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) within interior side restoration. Each specimen sliced sections measuring approximately 1 mm2. rods then subjected bond statistical analysis on differences μTBS between groups determined Mann–Whitney test. surfaces examined determine mode. Chi-Square association type DR group presented mean 38.15 ± 10.75 MPa predominance cohesive failures (69.5%). SR showed 25.45 10.19 (92.3%). There not only statistically significant difference (p < 0.001), but also strategy mode 0.001). Even though Clearfil 2 provided acceptable self-etch system, lower more are expected compared restorations.