Single-step adhesives are permeable membranes (original) (raw)
Related papers
Revista Portuguesa de Estomatologia, Medicina Dentária e Cirurgia Maxilofacial, 2016
The aim of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength and the adhesive interface of four adhesive systems to primary dentin. Methods: Sixteen sound human primary molars were ground flat to expose dentin and randomly divided into four experimental groups according to the different adhesive material evaluated: three self-etching systems (Clearfil TM Protect Bond, Clearfil TM S 3 Bond Plus and Futurabond ® U) and one etch-and-rinse system (Prime&Bond ® NT). The adhesives were applied under manufacturer's instructions and the crowns "restored" with a composite resin (Synergy ® D6). The "restored" teeth were then cross-sectioned to obtain sticks. Each stick was evaluated using a microtensile test in a universal testing machine. Additionally, eighteen dentin samples from four temporary molars were prepared for dentin conditioning and interface morphology evaluation using scanning electron microscopy. The bond strength results were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and a Tukey HSD test (confidence level of 95%). Results: ClearfilTMS 3 Bond Plus (47,28 MPa), Prime&Bond ® NT (43.11 MPa) and Clearfil TM Protect Bond (40.33 MPa), presented the highest adhesion values without statistical differences. Futurabond ® U bond strengths (35.16 MPa) was statistically similar to Clearfil TM Protect Bond (p = 0.271) but significantly lower from Prime&Bond ® NT (p = 0.022) and Clearfil TM S 3 Bond Plus (p < 0.001). An ultra-morphological evaluation showed marked differences in smear layer dissolution, depth of dentin demineralization and thickness of the hybrid layer promoted by the different adhesive strategies evaluated. Conclusions: Considering the limitations of this in vitro study, some self-etch adhesives may be capable of producing high bond strengths to primary dentin, similar to the etch-and-rinse adhesive evaluated.
Journal of Dentistry, 2012
j o u r n a l o f d e n t i s t r y 4 0 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 1 0 9 0 -1 1 0 2 Bond strength Nanoleakage Degree of conversion Raman spectrum analysis a b s t r a c t Objectives: To evaluate the effect of prolonged exposure times on immediate and 6-month adhesive properties: degree of conversion (DC), nanoleakage (NL) and resin-dentine bond strength (mTBS) of three one-step self-etch adhesive systems (Adper Easy One [EO], Clearfil S 3 Bond [CS3] and Go [GO]).
International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives, 2014
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength to dentin (mTBS) of two total-etching adhesives applied with delays of 1-30 s for curing. Fifty extracted molar teeth were used. Occlusal enamel was sectioned to expose flat dentin surface, which was further polished with 600-grit paper for smear layer standardization. The specimens were divided into two groups, G1: Single Bond total-etching adhesive (SB), and G2: Prime & Bond NT total-etching adhesive (PB). Each group was further divided into 5 subgroups according to the delayed light-cure initiation after the adhesive systems application (n ¼5): Subgroup 1s-1 s; Subgroup 5s-5 s; Subgroup 10s-10 s; Subgroup 20s-20 s; Subgroup 30s-30 s. Composite resin cones 5 mm height and 10 mm in diameter were fabricated. Specimens were stored in distilled water at 37 1C for 24 h and sectioned to obtain 1 Â 1 mm 2 transversal specimens. Specimens were thermocycled and mTBS was measured. Data were submitted to two-way ANOVA (AdhesiveXDelay time) and Tukey's test. The level of significance was set at 5%. The results in mean MPa(7SD) for interaction between adhesive and delay time were: PB/1s-23.82 7 2.54a; SB/5s-19.52 7 2.67b; PB/5s-18.56 7 3.06bc; SB/1s-15.49 7 2.69cd; SB/20s-16.337 2.55d; SB/10s-13.88 71.67d; PB/10s-11.04 71.28e; PB/30s-10.89 7 1.31e; PB/20s-10.247 2.33e; SB/30s-9.19 71.91e. It was concluded that light-cure initiation timing of total-etching adhesives interferes negatively with mTBS to dentin.
Immediate bonding properties of universal adhesives to dentine
Journal of Dentistry, 2013
Objectives: To evaluate the dentine microtensile bond strength (mTBS), nanoleakage (NL), degree of conversion (DC) within the hybrid layer for etch-and-rinse and self-etch strategies of universal simplified adhesive systems. Methods: forty caries free extracted third molars were divided into 8 groups for mTBS (n = 5), according to the adhesive and etching strategy: Clearfil SE Bond [CSE] and Adper Single Bond 2 [SB], as controls; Peak Universal Adhesive System, self-etch [PkSe] and etch-and-rinse [PkEr]; Scotchbond Universal Adhesive, self-etch [ScSe] and etch-and-rinse [ScEr]; All Bond Universal, self-etch [AlSe] and etch-and-rinse [AlEr]. After restorations were constructed, specimens were stored in water (37 8C/24 h) and then resin-dentine sticks were prepared (0.8 mm 2). The sticks were tested under tension at 0.5 mm/min. Some sticks from each tooth group were used for DC determination by micro-Raman spectroscopy or nanoleakage evaluation (NL). The pH for each solution was evaluated using a pH metre. Data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (a = 0.05). Results: For mTBS, only PkSe and PkEr were similar to the respective control groups (p > 0.05). AlSe showed the lowest mTBS mean (p < 0.05). For NL, ScEr, ScSe, AlSe, and AlEr showed the lowest NL similar to control groups (p < 0.05). For DC, only ScSe showed lower DC than the other materials (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Performance of universal adhesives was shown to be material-dependent. The results indicate that this new category of universal adhesives used on dentine as either etchand-rinse or self-etch strategies were inferior as regards at least one of the properties evaluated (mTBS, NL and DC) in comparison with the control adhesives (CSE for self-etch and SB for etch-and-rinse).
Journal of dentistry, 2016
This study evaluated the effects of surface preparation and the application time of adhesives on the resin-dentine bond strengths with universal adhesives. Sixty molars were cut to exposed mid-coronal dentine and divided into 12 groups (n=5) based on three factors; (1) adhesive: G-Premio Bond (GP, GC Corp., Tokyo, Japan), Clearfil Universal Bond (CU, Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc., Okayama, Japan) and Scotchbond Universal Adhesive (SB, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA); (2) smear layer preparation: SiC paper ground dentine or bur-cut dentine; (3) application time: shortened time or as manufacturer's instruction. Fifteen resin-dentine sticks per group were processed for microtensile bond strength test (μTBS) according to non-trimming technique (1mm(2)) after storage in distilled water (37°C) for 24h. Data were analyzed by three-way ANOVA and Dunnett T3 tests (α=0.05). Fractured surfaces were observed under scanning electron microscope (SEM). Another 12 teeth were prepared and cut into sl...
Ain Shams Dental Journal, 2022
To study the relevance of dentin moisture state on the micro-tensile bond strength (µTBS) and bonded interface morphology when using two universal adhesives with different compositions. Materials and Methods: Sixty-third molars randomly allocated into 12 groups based on adhesive types (Prime & Bond Universal [P&BU], Dentsply Sirona, New York, USA and Single Bond Universal [SBU], 3M ESPE, Neuss, Germany), adhesives application approach (etch and rinse or self-etch), and the amount of moisture found on surface of dentin (dry, wet & visible moist dentin surface). Thirty-six molars were divided into beams of composite and dentin with adhesive interface for µTBS (n=20) after restoration. Twenty-four molars were used to create specimens for scanning electron microscope evaluation of the bonded interface (n=2). For statistical analysis, three-way ANOVA was used, followed by a multiple comparison with Bonferroni adjustment. Results: In etch and rinse, P&BU had higher µTBS than SBU when the dentin surface was dry, SBU had higher µTBS when the dentin surface was wet. There were no differences between both adhesives on the moist dentin surface. In selfetch, SBU had higher µTBS than P&BU on the moist dentin surface, there were no significant differences between the two adhesives on dry and on wet dentin surfaces. For both adhesives, SEM images revealed better hybrid layer morphology and integrity with a greater number of resin tags and deeper penetration in etch and rinse approach than self-etch. Moist dentin surface developed better interface morphology than dry dentin surface, but wet dentin surface had the poorest hybrid layer quality with scarce resin tags in both adhesives. Conclusion: When dentin was moist or dry, universal adhesive systems demonstrated good adhesive performance. The response in wet dentin, on the other hand, is material composition dependent. Universal adhesives are better utilized in etch and rinse approach than the self-etch approach.
Tanta Dental Journal, 2014
Purpose: To evaluate effect of water storage on micro-shear bond strength of adhesives to class I cavity-bottom dentin using two types of composites resin. Materials and methods: Ninety teeth were divided into three groups I,II&III (thirty molars each) according to the adhesive used, either total-etch 2-step (Adper Single Bond, 3M ESPE), self-etch 2-step(Clearfil SE Bond, Kuraray), or self-etch 1-step(Futura Bond, Voco) respectively. Each group was subdivided according to type of composite restoration used, either Hybrid (Clearfil APX, Kuraray), and Packable (Filtek P60, 3M ESPE). All teeth were thermocycled for 500 cycles,and subjected to occlusal load cycling for 120.000 cycles corresponding to 6 months clinical use. Bonding effectiveness was assessed by micro-shear bond strength test (mSBS) after 1 day, 3 months, and 6 months water storage.