Etch and rinse versus self-etching adhesives systems: Tridimensional micromechanical analysis of dentin/adhesive interface

The purpose of this study was to evaluate stress distribution in the hybrid layer produced by two adhesive systems using three-dimensional finite element analysis (FEA). Four FEA models (M) were developed: Mc, a representation of a dentin specimen (41 x 41 x 82 mu m) restored with composite resin, exhibiting the adhesive layer, hybrid layer (HL), resin tags, peritubular dentin, and intertubular dentin to simulate the etch-and-rinse adhesive system; Mr, similar to Mc, with lateral branches of the adhesive; Ma, similar to Mc, however without resin tags and obliterated tubule orifice, to simulate the environment for the self-etching adhesive system; Mat, similar to Ma, with tags. A numerical simulation was performed to obtain the maximum principal stress (sigma(max)). The highest sigma(max) in the HL was observed for the etch-and-rinse adhesive system. The lateral branches increased the sigma(max) in the HL. The resin tags had a little influence on stress distribution with the self-etching system. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Effects of Surface Hydration and Application Method on the Bond Strength of Self-Etching Adhesives to Dentin

The effect of application methods and dentin hydration on the bond strength of three self-etching adhesives (SEA) were evaluated; 195 extracted bovine incisors were used. The buccal surface was ground in order to expose the dentin, which remained 2-mm minimum thickness, measured by a thickness meter through an opening on the lingual surface. Adper Single Bond 2 (TM) was used for the control group. The SEA were applied following two modes of application: passive or active and two hydration states of the dentin surface-dry and wet. After light-curing, composite buildups were made using Grandio (TM) composite. The specimens were sectioned and tested with a microtensile bond strength test. The application method and the hydration state resulted in statistical differences (p = 0.000) making the values of active application for mu TBS to dentin higher than passive application. The wet surfaces showed higher mu TBS to dentin ratios than dry surfaces. There were no statistical differences in mu TBS among the SEA tested but there were differences regarding to control group.

Effects of Surface Hydration State and Application Method on the Bond Strength of Self-etching Adhesives to Cut Enamel

Purpose: To evaluate the effect of surface hydration state and application method on the microtensile bond strength of one-step self-etching adhesives systems to cut enamel.Materials and Methods: One hundred ninety-five bovine teeth were used. The enamel on the buccal side was flattened with 600-grit SiC paper. For the control group, 15 teeth received Adper Single Bond 2, applied according to manufacturer's recommendations. The other specimens were divided into three groups according to the adhesive system used: Futura Bond M (FM; Voco), Clearfil S-3 Bond (CS; Kuraray), and Optibond All in One (OA; Kerr). For each group, two hydration states were tested: D: blown dry with air; W: the excess of water was removed with absorbent paper. Two application methods were tested: P (passive): the adhesive was simply left on the surface; A (active): the adhesive was rubbed with an applicator point. A coat of Grandio composite resin (Voco) was applied on the surface. The teeth were sectioned to obtain enamel-resin sticks (1 x 1 mm), which underwent microtensile bond testing. The data in MPa were submitted to a three-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (alpha = 5%).Results: The ANOVA showed significant differences for application method and the type of adhesive, but not for hydration state. For the application method, the results of Tukey's test were: P: 31.46 (+/-7.09)a; A: 34.04 (+/-7.19)b. For the type of adhesive, the results were: OA: 31.29 (+/-7.05)a; CS: 32.28 (+/-7.14)a; FM: 34.68 (+/-7.17)b; different lower-case letters indicate statistically significant differences.Conclusion: Active application improved the bond strength to cut enamel. The adhesive Futurabond M showed the highest bond strength to cut enamel.

BOND STRENGTH DURABILITY of SELF-ETCHING ADHESIVES and RESIN CEMENTS TO DENTIN

Objectives: To evaluate the microtensile bond strength (mu TBS) of one-(Xeno III, Dentsply) and two-step (Tyrian-One Step Plus, Bisco) self-etching adhesive systems bonded to dentin and cemented to chemically cured (C&B Metabond) or light-cured paste of a dual-cure resin cement (Variolink II, Ivoclar) within a short (24 h) and long period of evaluation (90 days). Material and Methods: Forty recently extracted human molars had their roots removed and their occlusal dentin exposed and ground wet with 600-grit SiC paper. After application of one of the adhesives, the resin cement was applied to the bonded surface and a composite resin block was incrementally built up to a height of 5 mm (n = 10). The restored teeth were stored in distilled water at 37 C for 7 days. The teeth were then cut along two axes (x and y), producing beam-shaped specimens with 0.8 mm(2) cross-sectional area, which were subjected to mu TBS testing at a crosshead speed of 0.05 mm/min and stressed to failure after 24 h or 90 days of storage in water. The mu TBS data in MPa were subjected to three-way analysis of variance and Tukey's test (alpha = 0.05). Results: The interaction effect for all three factors was statistically significant (three-way ANOVA, p < 0.001). All eight experimental means (MPa) were compared by the Tukey's test (p < 0.05) and the following results were obtained: Tyrian-One Step Plus /C&B/24 h (22.4 +/- 7.3); Tyrian-One Step Plus /Variolink II/24 h (39.4 +/- 11.6); Xeno III/C&B/24 h (40.3 +/- 12.9); Xeno III/Variolink II/24 h (25.8 +/- 10.5); Tyrian-One Step Plus / C&B/90 d (22.1 +/- 12.8) Tyrian-One Step Plus/VariolinkII/90 d (24.2 +/- 14.2); Xeno III/C&B/90 d (27.0 +/- 13.5); Xeno III/Variolink II/90 d (33.0 +/- 8.9). Conclusions: Xeno III/Variolink II was the luting agent/adhesive combination that provided the most promising bond strength after 90 days of storage in water.

Clinical evaluation of postoperative sensitivity using self-etching adhesives containing glutaraldehyde

The present clinical study aimed to assess the postoperative sensitivity (POS) after 48 hours and seven days in occlusal restorations bonded with three different adhesive systems, two of them containing glutaraldehyde. The restorative procedures were performed using the three-step etch-and-rinse Adper SBMP-Plus adhesive (SBMP), the two-step etch-and-rinse Gluma Comfort One Bond + Desensitizer adhesive (GC+D) and the all-in-one self-etching/priming I Bond (IB) adhesive, which also has glutaraldehyde in its formula. All cavities were restored with Filtek Supreme nanoparticle composite resin. After 48 hours and seven days the patients were recalled and the postoperative sensitivity evaluated. The data analyzed by non-parametric Friedman test showed no significant differences in POS among the three tested groups after 48 hours and seven days.

Resin tag length of one-step and self-etching adhesives bonded to unground enamel

Length of resin tags yielded by utilization of an one-step conventional adhesive system and self-etching adhesive system on unground enamel was observed. In study Groups I and III, the enamel surface was etched for 60 seconds with 35% phosphoric acid gel and adhesive systems PQ1 (Ultradent Products, Inc) and Adper Prompt L Pop (3M/ESPE) were applied. Adper Prompt L Pop (3M/ESPE) was also applied in Group II in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. After application of these adhesive systems to dental enamel, specimens were prepared for light microscopy analysis to ascertain degree of penetration (x400). The results were submitted to an analysis of variance at the 5% level; whenever there was significance, the Tukey test was applied at the 5% level. It was found that acid etching prior to application of conventional and self-etching adhesive materials provided higher penetration of the adhesive into the unground enamel surface compared to that achieved solely by application of self-etching adhesive.

Effect of Salivary Contamination and Decontamination on Bond Strength of Two One-Step Self-Etching Adhesives to Dentin of Primary and Permanent Teeth

Purpose: To evaluate the effects of human saliva contamination and two decontamination procedures at different stages of the bonding procedure on the bond strength of two one-step self-etching adhesives to primary and permanent dentin. Materials and Methods: Extracted human primary and permanent molars (210 of each) were ground to mid-coronal dentin. The dentin specimens were randomly divided into 7 groups (n = 15/group/molar type) for each adhesive (Xeno V+ and Scotchbond Universal): no saliva contamination (control); saliva contamination before or after light curing of the adhesives followed by air drying, rinsing with water spray/air drying, or by rinsing with water spray/air drying/reapplication of the adhesives. Resin composite (Filtek Z250) was applied on the treated dentin surfaces. The specimens were stored at 37°C and 100% humidity for 24 h. After storage, shear bond strength (SBS) was measured and data analyzed with nonparametric ANOVA followed by exact Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Results: Xeno V+ generated significantly higher SBS than Scotchbond Universal when no saliva contamination occurred. Saliva contamination reduced SBS of Xeno V+, with the reduction being more pronounced when contamination occurred before light curing than after. In both situations, decontamination involving reapplication of the adhesive restored SBS. Saliva contamination had no significant effect on Scotchbond Universal. There were no differences in SBS between primary and permanent teeth. Conclusion: Rinsing with water and air drying followed by reapplication of the adhesive restored bond strength to saliva-contaminated dentin.

Microshear Bond Strength of Self-etching Systems Associated with a Hydrophobic Resin Layer

Purpose: To evaluate in vitro the microshear bond strength of adhesive systems applied to dentin according to manufacturers` instructions, associated or not with a hydrophobic layer of unfilled resin. Materials and Methods: Six self-etching adhesives (Clearfil SE Bond, Kuraray Medical; AdheSE, lvoclar Vivadent; Xeno III, Dentsply; I Bond, Heraeus-Kulzer; Bond Force, Tokuyama; Futurabond DC, Voco) were tested. The labial dentin of sixty bovine incisors was exposed, and the teeth were divided into two groups according to the application or not of an extra hydrophobic resin layer (Scotchbond Multi Purpose Plus, bottle 3). Six composite cylinders (Filtek Z250, 3M ESPE) were built up on each treated surface. Specimens were stored in distilled water at 37 C for 24 h and then subjected to the microshear bond strength test in a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Microshear bond strength values were analyzed by 2-way ANOVA and Tukey`s post-hoc test. Failure mode was determined using a stereomicroscope under 20X magnification. Results: The application of the hydrophobic resin layer did not affect bond strength, except for AdheSE. However, the bond strengths with the hydrophobic layer were similar among the six tested systems (Clearfil: 17.1 +/- 7.9; AdheSE: 14.5 +/- 7.1; Xeno III: 12.8 +/- 7.7; I Bond: 9.5 +/- 5.8; Bond Force: 17.5 +/- 4.1; Futurabond: 7.7 +/- 2.3). When used as recommended by the manufacturers, Bond Force presented statistically higher bond strength than AdheSE and I Bond (p < 0.05) (Clearfil 10.4 +/- 4.9; AdheSE 1.6 +/- 1.6; Xeno III: 9.0 +/- 3.8; I Bond: 3.0 +/- 1.5; Bond Force: 14 +/- 3.9; Futurabond: 8.8 +/- 3.8). Failure mode was predominantly adhesive. Conclusion: The bond strength of the self-etching systems tested was not significantly affected by the application of a hydrophobic layer, but a significant improvement was observed in AdheSE.

Transdentinal diffusion and cytotoxicity of self-etching adhesive systems

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Influence of Application Methods of Self-etching Adhesive Systems on Adhesive Bond Strength to Dentin

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Effects of Self-Etching Adhesive Systems Used in the Dental Modelling Technique on the Cohesive Strength of Composite Resin

This study evaluated the cohesive strength of composite using self-etching adhesive systems (SE) in the lubrication of instruments between layers of composite. The specimens were made by using a Teflon (R) device. SE were used at the interface to lubricate the instruments: Group 1(G1) - control group, no lubricant was used; Group 2(G2) -Futurabond (R) M; Group 3(G3) - Optibond (R) All-In-One; Group 4(G4) - Clearfil (R) SE Bond; Group 5(G5) - Futurabond (R) NR; Group 6(G6) - Adper (R) SE Plus; Group 7(G7) - One Up Bond (R) F. Specimens were submitted to the tensile test to evaluate the cohesive strength. Data were submitted to the ANOVA and Tukey tests. ANOVA showed a value of p = 0.00. The average means (SD): G2 = 11.33(+/-3.44) a, G3 = 15.36(+/-4.06) ab, G4 = 18.9(+/-4.72) bc, G7 = 19.62(+/-4.46) bc, G5 = 21.02(+/-5.09) bc, G6 = 23.39(+/-4.17) cd, and G1 = 28.49(+/-2.89) d. All SE decreased the cohesive strength of the composite, except for Adper (R) SE Plus.

Influence of Methods of Application of Self-etching Adhesive Systems on Adhesive Bond Strength to Enamel

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

One-year clinical performance of self-etch adhesives in posterior restorations

Purpose: To evaluate the 1-year clinical performance of three self-etching adhesives (Adper Prompt L-Pop, Clearfil S-3 Bond, iBond) in posterior composite restorations using one etch&rinse adhesive (One-Step Plus) as control. Methods: Upon approval by the Institutional Review Board, 121 restorations were inserted in 38 subjects. The adhesives were applied as per manufacturers' instructions. Preparations were restored with a nanofilled resin composite (Filtek Supreme) and evaluated at baseline, 6 months, and 1 year. Statistical analyses included the Chi-square distribution with the McNemar non-parametric test (P< 0.05). Results: At 1 year, 111 restorations in 35 subjects were evaluated using the USPHS modified criteria. No significant changes were observed for the etch&rinse adhesive One-Step Plus. At 1 year the number of Alfa ratings decreased significantly for Clearfil S-3 Bond and for iBond in the categories color match, marginal staining, and marginal adaptation. For Adper Prompt L-Pop, marginal adaptation at 1 year was significantly worse than at baseline. Postoperative sensitivity to air improved significantly for Adper Prompt L-Pop, Clearfil S-3 Bond, and iBond. When the evaluation criteria were paired at 1 year, iBond resulted in a significantly lower number of Alfa ratings than any of the other adhesives for color match, marginal staining, and marginal adaptation. One-Step Plus resulted in a greater number of Alfa ratings for marginal adaptation than either Adper Prompt L-Pop or Clearfil S-3 Bond. Marginal adaptation was significantly better for Clearfil S-3 Bond than for Adper Prompt L-Pop. The post-operative sensitivity measured at 1 year for Adper Prompt L-Pop was statistically better than that for One-Step Plus.