One-year stability of resin-dentin bonds created with a hydrophobic ethanol-wet bonding technique

Dentin bonding performed with hydrophobic resins using ethanol-wet bonding should be less susceptible to degradation but this hypothesis has never been validated. Objectives. This in vitro study evaluated stability of resin-dentin bonds created with an experimental three-step BisGMA/TEGDMA hydrophobic adhesive or a three-step hydrophilic adhesive after one year of accelerated aging in artificial saliva. Methods. Flat surfaces in mid-coronal dentin were obtained from 45 sound human molars and randomly divided into three groups (n = 15): an experimental three-step BisGMA/TEGDMA hydrophobic adhesive applied to ethanol (ethanol-wet bonding-GI) or water-saturated dentin (water-wet bonding-GII) and Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose [MP-GIII] applied, according to manufacturer instructions, to water-saturated dentin. Resin composite crowns were incrementally formed and light-cured to approximately 5 mm in height. Bonded specimens were stored in artificial saliva at 37 degrees C for 24h and sectioned into sticks. They were subjected to microtensile bond test and TEM analysis immediately and after one year. Data were analyzed with two-way ANOVA and Tukey tests. Results. MP exhibited significant reduction in microtensile bond strength after aging (24 h: 40.6 +/- 2.5(a); one year: 27.5 +/- 3.3(b); in MPa). Hybrid layer degradation was evident in all specimens examined by TEM. The hydrophobic adhesive with ethanol-wet bonding preserved bond strength (24 h: 43.7 +/- 7.4(a); one year: 39.8 +/- 2.7(a)) and hybrid layer integrity, with the latter demonstrating intact collagen fibrils and wide interfibrillar spaces. Significance. Coaxing hydrophobic resins into acid-etched dentin using ethanol-wet bonding preserves resin-dentin bond integrity without the adjunctive use of MMPs inhibitors and warrants further biocompatibility and patient safety`s studies and clinical testing. (C) 2009 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Durability of Enamel Bonding Using One-step Self-etch Systems on Ground and Unground Enamel

Objective: To examine the morphological, early and long-term microtensile bond strengths (mu TBS) of one-step self-etch systems to unground and ground enamel. Materials and Methods: Resin composite (Filtek Z250) buildups were bonded to the buccal and lingual enamel surfaces (unground, bur-cut or SiC-roughened enamel) of third molars after adhesive application using the following adhesives: Clearfil S(3) Bond (CS3); Adper Prompt L-Pop (ADP); iBond (iB) and, as the control, Clearfil SE Bond (CSE). Six tooth halves were assigned for each condition. After storage in water (24 hours/37 degrees C), the bonded specimens were sectioned into beams (0.8 mm(2)) and subjected to pTBS (0.5 mm/min) either immediately (IM) or after six (6M) or 12 months (12M) of water storage. The data were analyzed by three-way repeated measures ANOVA and Tukey`s test (alpha=0.05). Surface conditioning was observed under scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Results: The mu TBS in the Si-C paper and diamond bur groups were similar and higher than the unground group. No significant difference was observed among the different storage periods, except for CS3, which showed an increase in the pTBS after 12M. The etching pattern was more retentive on ground enamel. Conclusions: One-step self-etch adhesives showed higher bond strengths on ground enamel and no reductions in resin-enamel bonds were observed after 12M of water storage.

Light cola drink is less erosive than the regular one: An in situ/ex vivo study

Objective: This in situ/ex vivo study assessed the erosive potential of a light cola drink when compared to a regular one. Methods: During 2 experimental 14-days crossover phases, eight volunteers wore palatal devices with 2 human enamel blocks. The groups under study were: group light, erosive challenge with light cola drink and group regular, erosive challenge with regular cola drink. During 14 days, erosive challenges were performed extraorally 3X/day. In each challenge, the device was immersed in 150 ml of light cola (group light) or regular cola (group regular) for 5 min. Erosion was analysed by surface profilometry (mu m) and surface microhardness change (%SMH). The data were statistically analyzed using paired t test (p<0.05). Results: Group light (0.6 +/- 0.2 mu m) showed significantly lesser wear than group regular (3.1 +/- 1.0 mu m). There was no significant difference between the groups for the %SMH (group light -63.9 +/- 13.9 and group regular -78.5 +/- 12.7). Conclusions: The data suggest that the light cola drink is less erosive than the regular one. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

A Randomized Clinical Evaluation of a One- and Two-step Self-etch Adhesive Over 24 Months

Objective: To evaluate the performance of All Bond SE used in a one- or two-step protocol in a 24-month randomized clinical study. Methods: Thirty-three patients with two similarly sized non-carious cervical lesions participated in this study. A total of 66 restorations were placed, half using the one-step All Bond SE protocol (SE-1) and the other half using the two-step All Bond SE protocol (SE-2). The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 6, 12 and 24 months following the modified USPHS criteria and analyzed by the McNemar`s test and Fisher`s exact test (alpha=0.05). Results: After 24 months, six SE-1 and four SE-2 restorations were rated as Bravo in marginal discoloration The retention rates for SE-1 and SE-2 were 84.8% and 90.9%, respectively, after 24 months. Compared to baseline, the retention rate for SE-1 was statistically lower. Conclusions: All Bond SE used in the one- or two-step protocol resulted in high retention rates after 24 months.

Microtensile vs Microshear Bond Strength of All-in-One Adhesives to Unground Enamel

Purpose To determine the bond strength to unground enamel of all in one adhesives in comparison with an etch and rinse system and to compare the reliability of microtensile and microshear methods in providing such measurements Materials and Methods The bonding procedure was performed on enamel of 64 extracted molars The tested all in one adhesives were Bond Force (Tokuyama), AdheSE One (Ivoclar Vivadent) and Xeno V (Dentsply) Prime&Bond NT (Dentsply) served as control Microtensile specimens were obtained from 4 teeth per group Twelve teeth per group were used for microshear testing Microtensile specimens that failed prior to testing were included in statistical calculations, they were assigned the lowest value measured in the respective group Failure modes were observed under light microscope and classified (cohesive within substrates, adhesive mixed) Statistically significant differences in bond strength were assessed among the adhesives within each testing method and between microshear and microtensile data for each adhesive Failure mode distributions were compared using the chi square test Results All in-one adhesives had similar microshear and microtensile bond strengths In both testing methods, the etch and rinse system achieved the strongest bond For all adhesives significantly higher bond strengths were measured with the microshear test In microtensile testing specimens bonded with the etch and rinse adhesive exhibited a significantly different distribution of failure modes The coefficients of variation were extremely high for microtensile bond strength data, particularly of all in one adhesives Conclusion The adhesive potential to intact enamel of recently introduced all in-one adhesives was inferior to that of an etch and rinse system When testing bond strength to enamel of all in one adhesives, microshear testing may be a more accurate method than microtensile