Evaluation of bond strength and thickness of adhesive layer according to the techniques of applying adhesives in composite resin restorations

Adhesive restorations have increasingly been used in dentistry, and the adhesive system application technique may determine the success of the restorative procedure. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of the application technique of two adhesive systems (Clearfil SE Bond and Adper Scotchbond MultiPurpose) on the bond strength and adhesive layer of composite resin restorations. Eight human third molars were selected and prepared with Class I occlusal cavities. The teeth were restored with composite using various application techniques for both adhesives, according to the following groups (n = 10): group 1 (control), systems were applied and adhesive was immediately light activated for 20 seconds without removing excesses; group 2, excess adhesive was removed with a gentle jet of air for 5 seconds; group 3, excess was removed with a dry microbrush-type device; and group 4, a gentle jet of air was applied after the microbrush and then light activation was performed. After this, the teeth were submitted to microtensile testing. For the two systems tested, no statistical differences were observed between groups 1 and 2. Groups 3 and 4 presented higher bond strength values compared with the other studied groups, allowing the conclusion that excess adhesive removal with a dry micro-brush could improve bond strength in composite restorations. Predominance of adhesive fracture and thicker adhesive layer were observed via scanning electron microscopy (SEM) in groups 1 and 2. For groups 3 and 4, a mixed failure pattern and thinner adhesive layer were verified. Clinicians should be aware that excess adhesive may negatively affect bond strength, whereas a thin, uniform adhesive layer appears to be favorable. (Quintessence Int 2013;44:9-15)

Bond strength of composite to dentin: effect of acid etching and laser irradiation through an uncured self-etch adhesive system

This study evaluated the effect on micro-tensile bond strength (mu-TBS) of laser irradiation of etched/unetched dentin through an uncured self-etching adhesive. Dentinal surfaces were treated with Clearfil SE Bond Adhesive (CSE) either according to the manufacturer's instructions (CSE) or without applying the primer (CSE/NP). The dentin was irradiated through the uncured adhesive, using an Nd: YAG laser at 0.75 or 1 W power settings. The adhesive was cured, composite crowns were built up, and the teeth were sectioned into beams (0.49 mm(2)) to be stressed under tension. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey statistics (alpha = 5%). Dentin of the fractured specimens and the interfaces of untested beams were observed under scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The results showed that non-etched irradiated surfaces presented higher mu-TBS than etched and irradiated surfaces (p < 0.05). Laser irradiation alone did not lead to differences in mu-TBS (p > 0.05). SEM showed solidification globules on the surfaces of the specimens. The interfaces were similar on irradiated and non-irradiated surfaces. Laser irradiation of dentin through the uncured adhesive did not lead to higher mu-TBS when compared to the suggested manufacturer's technique. However, this treatment brought benefits when performed on unetched dentin, since bond strengths were higher when compared to etched dentin.

Adhesion of substrate-adherent combinations for early composite repairs: Effect of intermediate adhesive resin application

This study evaluated the effect of intermediate adhesive resin application (IAR) on tensile bond strength (TBS) for early composite repairs in situations where substrate and repair composite bonded together were once of the same kind with the substrate (similar) and once other than the substrate material (dissimilar). Specimens from three types of composites (TPH Spectrum (TPH), Charisma (CHA) and Filtek Z250 (Z250)) were fabricated. The specimens in each composite group (n=72) were randomly divided into six subgroups (n=12). In each composite group, the similar and two dissimilar composites were bonded onto the substrates once using an IAR (Adper Single Bond Plus) and once without. After water storage for I week at 37 degrees C, substrate-adherent combinations were submitted to tensile test. Data were analyzed with three-way ANOVA and Tukey's tests (alpha=0.05). The substrate-adherent combination (p=0.0001), adherent (repair) composite (p=0.0001), and application of IAR (p=0.0001) significantly affected the results. Utilization of IAR improved the repair bond strength for all composite combinations. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Effect of Surface Conditioning Modalities on the Repair Bond Strength of Resin Composite to the Zirconia Core / Veneering Ceramic Complex

Purpose: This study evaluated the effect of different surface conditioning protocols on the repair strength of resin composite to the zirconia core / veneering ceramic complex, simulating the clinical chipping phenomenon.Materials and Methods: Forty disk-shaped zirconia core (Lava Zirconia, 3M ESPE) (diameter: 3 mm) specimens were veneered circumferentially with a feldspathic veneering ceramic (VM7, Vita Zahnfabrik) (thickness: 2 mm) using a split metal mold. They were then embedded in autopolymerizing acrylic with the bonding surfaces exposed. Specimens were randomly assigned to one of the following surface conditioning protocols (n = 10 per group): group 1, veneer: 4% hydrofluoric acid (HF) (Porcelain Etch) + core: aluminum trioxide (50-mu m Al2O3) + core + veneer: silane (ESPE-Sil); group 2: core: Al2O3 (50 mu m) + veneer: HF + core + veneer: silane; group 3: veneer: HF + core: 30 mu m aluminum trioxide particles coated with silica (30 mu m SiO2) + core + veneer: silane; group 4: core: 30 mu m SiO2 + veneer: HF + core + veneer: silane. Core and veneer ceramic were conditioned individually but no attempt was made to avoid cross contamination of conditioning, simulating the clinical intraoral repair situation. Adhesive resin (VisioBond) was applied to both the core and the veneer ceramic, and resin composite (Quadrant Posterior) was bonded onto both substrates using polyethylene molds and photopolymerized. After thermocycling (6000 cycles, 5 degrees C-55 degrees C), the specimens were subjected to shear bond testing using a universal testing machine (1 mm/min). Failure modes were identified using an optical microscope, and scanning electron microscope images were obtained. Bond strength data (MPa) were analyzed statistically using the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test followed by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test and the Bonferroni Holm correction (alpha = 0.05).Results: Group 3 demonstrated significantly higher values (MPa) (8.6 +/- 2.7) than those of the other groups (3.2 +/- 3.1, 3.2 +/- 3, and 3.1 +/- 3.5 for groups 1, 2, and 4, respectively) (p < 0.001). All groups showed exclusively adhesive failure between the repair resin and the core zirconia. The incidence of cohesive failure in the ceramic was highest in group 3 (8 out of 10) compared to the other groups (0/10, 2/10, and 2/10, in groups 1, 2, and 4, respectively). SEM images showed that air abrasion on the zirconia core only also impinged on the veneering ceramic where the etching pattern was affected.Conclusion: Etching the veneer ceramic with HF gel and silica coating of the zirconia core followed by silanization of both substrates could be advised for the repair of the zirconia core / veneering ceramic complex.