Effect of smear layer characteristics on dentin bonding durability of HEMA-free and HEMA-containing one-step self-etch adhesives

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of smear layer characteristics on the dentin bonding durability of HEMA-free and HEMA-containing one-step self-etch adhesives. Xeno V (XV; HEMA-free), G BOND PLUS (GB; HEMA-free) and Clearfil S(3 )Bond (S(3); HEMA-containing), were applied to dentin surfaces prepared with either #180- or #600-grit SiC paper according to manufacturers' instructions. Bond strengths to dentin were determined using μTBS test after 24-hour, 6-month, and 1-year water storage. In addition, nanoleakage evaluation was performed using an SEM. The smear layer characteristics affected water-tree nanoleakage formation in the adhesive layers of XV and GB, which contributed to a reduction in μTBS after 6-month water storage, while the characteristics did not affect the μTBS of S(3). However, regardless of the smear layer characteristics, 1-year water storage significantly reduced the μTBS of all the adhesives and was associated with an increase in failures at the adhesive-composite interface.     

Effect of simulated pulpal pressure on all-in-one adhesive bond strengths to dentine

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the durability of all-in-one adhesive systems bonded to dentine with and without simulated hydrostatic pulpal pressure (PP). METHODS: Flat dentine surfaces of extracted human molars were prepared. Two all-in-one adhesive systems, One-Up Bond F (OBF) (Tokuyama Corp., Tokyo, Japan), and Fluoro Bond Shake One (FBS) (Shofu Co., Kyoto, Japan) were applied to the dentine surfaces under either a PP of 0 or 15cm H(2)O. Then, resin composite build-ups were made. The specimens bonded under pressure were stored in 37 degrees C water for 24h, 1 and 3 months under 15cm H(2)O PP. Specimens not bonded under pressure were stored under zero PP. After storage, the specimens were sectioned into slabs that were trimmed to hourglass shapes and subjected to micro-tensile bond testing (muTBS). The data were analysed using two-way ANOVA and Holm-Sidak HSD multiple comparison tests (alpha=0.05). RESULTS: The muTBS of OBF fell significantly (p<0.05) when PP was applied during bonding and storage, regardless of storage time. In contrast, although the muTBS of OBF specimens bonded and stored without hydrostatic pressure storage fell significantly over the 3 months period, the decrease was less than half as much as specimens stored under PP. In FBS bonded specimens, although there was no significant difference between the muTBS with and without hydrostatic pulpal pressure at 24h, by 1 and 3 months of storage under PP, significant reductions were seen compared with the control group without PP. CONCLUSION: The muTBS of OBF bonded specimens was lowered more by simulated PP than by storage time; specimens bonded with FBS were not sensitive to storage time in the absence of PP, but showed lower bond strengths at 1 and 3 months in the presence of PP.     

Combined effect of smear layer characteristics and hydrostatic pulpal pressure on dentine bond strength of HEMA-free and HEMA-containing adhesives

Objective

This study evaluated the combined effect of smear layer characteristics with hydrostatic pulpal pressure (PP) on bond strength and nanoleakage expression of HEMA-free and -containing self-etch adhesives.

Methods

Flat dentine surfaces were obtained from extracted human molars. Smear layers were created by grinding with #180- or #600-SiC paper. Three HEMA-free adhesives (Xeno V, G Bond Plus, Beautibond Multi) and two HEMA-containing adhesives (Bond Force, Tri-S Bond) were applied to the dentine surfaces under hydrostatic PP or none. Dentine bond strengths were determined using the microtensile bond test (μTBS). Data were statistically analyzed using three- and two-way ANOVA with Tukey post hoc comparison test. Nanoleakage evaluation was carried out under a scanning electron microscope (SEM).

Results

Coarse smear layer preparation and hydrostatic PP negatively affected the μTBS of HEMA-free and -containing adhesives, but there were no significant differences. The combined experimental condition significantly reduced μTBS of the HEMA-free adhesives, while the HEMA-containing adhesives exhibited no significant differences. Two-way ANOVA indicated that for HEMA-free adhesives, there were significant interactions in μTBS between smear layer characteristics and pulpal pressure, while for HEMA-containing adhesives, there were no significant interactions between them. Nanoleakage formation within the adhesive layers of both adhesive systems distinctly increased in the combined experimental group.

Conclusion

The combined effect of coarse smear layer preparation with hydrostatic PP significantly reduced the μTBS of HEMA-free adhesives, while in HEMA-containing adhesives, these effects were not obvious.

Clinical significance

Smear layer characteristics and hydrostatic PP would additively compromise dentine bonding of self-etch adhesives, especially HEMA-free adhesives.     

Long-term evaluation of water sorption and ultimate tensile strength of HEMA-containing/-free one-step self-etch adhesives

Objective

The objective of this study was to evaluate the water sorption (Wsp) and ultimate tensile strength (UTS) of HEMA-containing/free one-step self-etch adhesives after long-term water-storage.

Methods

Three HEMA-containing one-step self-etch adhesives (Bond Force (BF), Clearfil S³ Bond (S3) and OptiBond All-In-One (OP)), and one HEMA-free one-step self-etch adhesive, G Bond (GB) was used. After the solvents of each adhesive were evaporated, polymerised adhesive disks and dumbbell-shaped specimens of thirty-two each were prepared and divided into four groups of 14-, 90-, 180- and 360-day water-storage. After immersion in water for the designated storage periods, the disks were subjected to measurement of Wsp, and the dumbbell-shaped specimens were subjected to measurement of UTS. The data of Wsp and UTS were statistically analysed using a two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni test.

Results

Wsp of BF, S3 and OP increased over time, whereas for GB, there were no significant differences in Wsp among all the storage periods. Wsp of GB was lower than those of BF, S3 and OP in each period. The UTS of BF, S3 and OP decreased over time, whereas for GB, there were no significant differences in UTS among all storage periods. The highest UTS was initially seen in BF > GB = S3 = OP, and after 360-day water-storage, seen in BF = GB > OP = S3.

Conclusions

For the HEMA-containing adhesives, Wsp increased and UTS decreased over time. On the other hand, for the HEMA-free adhesive, Wsp and UTS did not significantly change even after 360-day water-storage.     

Effect of cavity configuration and aging on the bonding effectiveness of six adhesives to dentin.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect polymerization contraction stress may have on bond durability. METHODS: Bonding effectiveness was assessed by micro-tensile bond strength testing (muTBS) and electron microscopy. The muTBS to flat dentin surfaces and in standardized cavities was determined (this after 1 day as well as 1 year water storage). Six adhesives representing all current classes were applied: two etch-and-rinse (OptiBond FL, Kerr; Scotchbond 1, 3M ESPE), two self-etch (Clearfil SE Bond, Kuraray; Adper Prompt, 3M ESPE) and two glass-ionomer (Fuji Bond LC, GC; Reactmer, Shofu) adhesives. RESULTS: The conventional 3-step etch-and-rinse adhesive OptiBond FL bonded most effectively to dentin, and appeared insensitive to polymerization shrinkage stress and water degradation. The 2-step self-etch adhesive Clearfil SE Bond most closely approached this superior bonding effectiveness and only slightly lost bond strength after 1-year water exposure. The 2-step etch-and-rinse adhesive Scotchbond 1 and the 'strong' 1-step self-etch adhesive Adper Prompt appeared very sensitive to cavity configuration and water-aging effects. The 2-step resin-modified glass-ionomer adhesive Fuji Bond LC only suffered from shrinkage stress, but not from 1-year water-exposure. Remarkable also is the apparent repairability of the 'mild' 1-step glass-ionomer adhesive Reactmer when stored for 1 year in water, in spite of the very low 1-day muTBS. SIGNIFICANCE: Simplified bonding procedures do not necessarily imply improved bonding performance, especially in the long term.     

The effect of the air-blowing step on the technique sensitivity of four different adhesive systems

PURPOSE: To evaluate the technique sensitivity of four different adhesive systems using different air-blowing pressure. METHODS: Four adhesive systems were employed: Clearfil SE Bond [SE] (Kuraray, Japan), G-Bond [GB] (GC Corporation, Japan), Adper Prompt L-Pop [LP] (3M ESPE, USA) and an experimental adhesive, SSB-200 [SSB] (Kuraray, Japan). Twenty-four extracted molars were used. After grinding the coronal enamel surface, the teeth were divided into two equal groups. The first group's teeth were randomly assigned for bonding with the different adhesives using gentle air-blowing (g). For the teeth of the second group, the four adhesive systems were applied using strong air-blowing (s). After storage overnight in 37 degrees C water, the bonded specimens were sectioned into sticks (1 mm x 1 mm wide), which were subjected to microtensile bond strength testing (microTBS) at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The load at failure of each specimen was recorded and the data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests. The surfaces of the fractured specimens were observed using SEM to determine the failure mode. RESULTS: The results of the microTBS test showed that the highest bond strengths tended to be with SE for both gentle and strong air-blowing, and the significantly lowest for SSB with strong air streaming. Comparing the two techniques, significant differences were noted only for SSB-200 (P < 0.05). For each material, the SEM evaluation did not show distinct differences in the nature of the fractures between the two techniques, except for SSB-200. CONCLUSIONS: The adhesives tested are not technique sensitive, except SSB-200, with regards to the air-blowing step.     

3-year clinical effectiveness of one-step adhesives in non-carious cervical lesions

ObjectivesDespite representing an important component of current dental adhesives, HEMA has been said to negatively influence the long-term stability of adhesion to dentine and enamel. The aim of this randomised clinical trial was to evaluate the 3-year clinical performance of two one-step self-etch adhesives.MethodsThirty patients had 175 non-carious cervical lesions restored with composite (Gradia Direct Anterior, GC) using either the HEMA-rich adhesive Clearfil Tri-S Bond (C3S; Kuraray) or the HEMA-free adhesive G-Bond (GB; GC). The restorations were evaluated by two examiners at baseline, 6, 12, 24 and 36 months regarding retention, caries recurrence, marginal integrity and discoloration and post-operative sensitivity. The data were statistically analysed with GEE and McNemar tests (p < 0.05).ResultsThe recall rate at 6 and 12 months was 100% and decreased to 96.7% at 24 and 36 months. At 3 years, the retention rate was 93.8% for C3S and 98.8% for GB (p = 0.14). A pairwise comparison showed no significant differences between the two adhesives for all the parameters evaluated, irrespective of the recall (p > 0.05). After 3 years, both adhesives presented an increase in the percentage of clinically acceptable marginal discoloration (C3S: 32.9% and GB: 26.8%) normally associated to clinically acceptable marginal defects (C3S: 35.8% and GB: 26.5%). Only 1 dentine margin of a GB restoration presented a severe marginal defect (1.2%) and 1 C3S restoration presented caries recurrence. The overall 3-year clinical success rate was 92.6% for C3S and 97.6% for GB (p = 0.16).ConclusionBoth one-step self-etch adhesives presented an equally favourable clinical effectiveness at 3 years.Clinical significanceHEMA is a monomer frequently present in dental adhesives in order to increase their wettability and hydrophilicity. However, this monomer negatively influences hydrolytic stability and durability of the adhesive interface complex. In this 3-year clinical trial no significant difference in bonding effectiveness was noticed between a HEMA-rich and HEMA-free one-step adhesive.     

Tensile bond strength of one-step self-etch adhesives to Er:YAG laser-irradiated and non-irradiated enamel

This study determined the bond strengths to Er:YAG laser-irradiated and non-irradiated bovine enamel of three one-step self-etch adhesives (AQ Bond Plus (AQP), G-Bond (GB), and Clearfil Tri-S Bond (TS)) and one two-step self-etch adhesive (Clearfil Megabond (MB)). Eighty SiC paper-ground bovine enamel surfaces were used, of which half were laser-irradiated. The enamel surfaces were bonded to a resin composite with each adhesive, and tensile bond strengths were determined after 24 hours. For non-irradiated enamel groups, MB achieved greater bond strength to enamel than GB and TS (p < 0.05), but no significant difference was found between MB and AQP (p > 0.05). For laser-irradiated enamel groups, no significant differences were found among the four adhesives (p > 0.05). Additionally, for each adhesive, no significant differences were found between laser-irradiated and non-irradiated enamel. It was thus concluded that Er: YAG laser irradiation of enamel did not affect the tensile bond strength of one-step and two-step self-etch adhesives.     

Comparison of microshear bond strengths of four self-etching bonding systems to enamel using two test methods

BACKGROUND: Recent advances in enamel and dentine adhesive technology have resulted in the emergence of many new adhesive systems. Self-etching bonding systems do not require a separate etching step and the newest systems are the "all-in-one" systems which combine etching, priming and bonding into a single application. This study reports laboratory enamel microshear bond strengths of a self-etching priming and three all-in-one systems and also evaluates two different microshear bond test methods. METHODS: One hundred and nineteen enamel specimens were bonded (0.8 mm diameter) with either Clearfil Protect Bond (Kuraray), Xeno III (Dentsply), G Bond (GC) or One-Up Bond F (Tokuyama) using Palfique Estelite resin composite and stored in 37 degrees Celsius water for seven days. The microshear bond test method used either a blade or wire to apply the shear stress. Results were analysed with one-way ANOVA and post hoc (Tukey) multiple comparison analysis. RESULTS: Clearfil Protect Bond demonstrated higher and more consistent bond strengths than Xeno III, G Bond or One-Up Bond F. The wire method showed much greater reliability in results, with a coefficient of variation half that of the blade method. CONCLUSIONS: All-in-one adhesives seem to be less reliable than the two-step self-etching priming adhesive when bonding to enamel. Test method can significantly affect results in the microshear bond test method.     

Influence of enamel border and regional variability on durability of resin-dentin bonds

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the influence of enamel border on regional resin-dentin microtensile bond strength (muTBS) over time. METHODS: Thirty human third molars had a flat dentine surface exposed. Two adhesive systems (Single Bond [SB] and ScotchBond Multi Purpose Plus [SBMP]) were applied and composite resin crowns (Filtek Z250) were constructed. Teeth were divided into three groups (n=5). Group A, specimens were sectioned to obtain sticks to be tested in tension (0.5mm/min) immediately. Group B specimens were stored without outer enamel in water for 6 months, before sectioning and testing. Group C, specimens were stored with outer enamel in water for 6 months, before sectioning and testing. In all groups, the origin of the sticks, periphery and inner regions was controlled. The data for each adhesive were subjected to a two-way repeated measure ANOVA (location versus storage conditions) and Tukey's test. RESULTS: No significant degradation in muTBS was observed for SBMU in all conditions. For SB, a significant reduction on muTBS was observed in the specimens without enamel border (group B). The degradation was more pronounced in the specimens from the periphery. CONCLUSIONS: The three-step etch-and-rinse system is less susceptible to water degradation effects; stable resin-dentin bonds can be achieved with two-step etch-and-rinse systems as long as there is a bonded enamel border.     

Micro-tensile and micro-shear bond strengths of current self-etch adhesives to enamel and dentin

PURPOSE: To evaluate the micro-tensile and micro-shear bond strengths of self-etch adhesives to enamel and dentin. METHODS: Extracted human molars were ground to expose flat enamel or dentin surfaces using wet #600 grit SiC paper. The enamel and dentin surfaces were assigned to four groups of four adhesives: three one-step self-etch adhesives (Clearfil S3 Bond; AQ Bond Plus, G-Bond) and a two-step self-etch adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond). Each of the adhesives were applied to the enamel or dentin surfaces in accordance with the manufacturers' instructions and restored with resin composite (Clearfil AP-X). The bonded teeth were then prepared for either micro-tensile or micro-shear bond strength tests. After storage in saline at 37 degrees C for 24 hours, specimens were stressed at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/minute. Mean bond strengths and modes of failure were analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by Scheffe's F test and the Chi-square test, respectively, at a 95% level of confidence. RESULTS: SE Bond produced significantly higher values than the one-step adhesives in the micro-shear bond test to enamel (P< 0.05), while no significant differences were found among the adhesives in the micro-tensile bond test (P> 0.05). For dentin, SE Bond showed the highest bond strengths in both micro-tensile and micro-shear bond tests; values were significantly higher than both AQ Bond Plus and G-Bond (P< 0.05).     

Microtensile bond strength of contemporary adhesives to primary enamel and dentin

The purpose of this study was to assess bond strength of three self-etching and two total-etch adhesive systems bonded to primary tooth enamel and dentin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty extracted primary human molars were selected and abraded in order to create flat buccal enamel and occlusal dentin surfaces. Teeth were assigned to one of the adhesive systems: Adper Scotch Bond Multi Purpose, Adper Single Bond 2, Adper Prompt L-Pop, Clearfil SE Bond and AdheSE. Immediately to adhesive application, a composite resin (Filtek Z250) block was built up. After 3 months of water storage, each sample was sequentially sectioned in order to obtain sticks with a square cross-sectional area of about 0.72 mm2. The specimens were fixed lengthways to a microtensile device and tested using a universal testing machine with a 50-N load cell at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Microtensile bond strength values were recorded in MPa and compared by Analysis of Variance and the post hoc Tukey test (a = 0.05). RESULTS: In enamel, Clearfil SE Bond presented the highest values, followed by Adper Single Bond 2, AdheSE and Adper Scotch Bond Multi Purpose, without significant difference. The highest values in dentin were obtained with Adper Scotch Bond Multi Purpose and all other adhesives did not present significant different values from that, except Adper Prompt L-Pop that achieved the lowest bond strength in both substrates. Adper Scotch Bond Multi Purpose and Adper Single Bond 2 presented significantly lower values in enamel than in dentin although all other adhesives presented similar results in both substrates. CONCLUSIONS: contemporary adhesive systems present similar behaviors when bonded to primary teeth, with the exception of the one-step self-etching system; and self-etching systems can achieve bond strength values as good in enamel as in dentin of primary teeth.     

One-bottle self-etching adhesives applied to dentine air-abraded using bioactive glasses containing polyacrylic acid: An in vitro microtensile bond strength and confocal microscopy study

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to test the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of two “simplified” self-etching adhesives bonded to air-abraded dentine using experimental bioactive glass powders containing polyacrylic acid.MethodsSound dentine specimens were air-abraded using a pure Bioglass 45S5 (Bioglass) powder or two Bioglass powders containing different concentration of polyacrylic acid (PAA: 15 wt% or 40 wt%). The bonding procedures were accomplished by the application of two self-etching adhesives (CS3: Clearfil S3 Bond; Kuraray, Osaka, Japan or GB: G Bond; GC Ltd. Tokyo, Japan). The resin-bonded specimens were cut in beams (0.9 mm²) and the μTBS testing was performed after 24 h or 6 months of phosphate buffer solution (PBS) storage. The results were statistically analysed by three-way ANOVA and Student–Newman–Keuls test used (α = 0.05). Further bonded-dentine specimens were used for the confocal microscopy interfacial characterisation and micropermeability analysis.ResultsThe CS3 adhesive system achieved higher μTBS than those attained in the specimens bonded with GB both after 24 h and 6 months of PBS storage. The CLSM analysis performed after 6 months of PBS storage indicated severe micropermeability within the bonded-dentine interfaces created using GB applied onto dentine air-abraded with Bioglass/PAA-15 and Bioglass/PAA-40. Conversely, CS3 exhibited no dye penetration (micropermeability) at the resin–dentine interface.ConclusionIt is possible to affirm that air-abrasion procedures performed using pure Bioglass or Bioglass containing 15 wt% PAA do not interfere with the immediate bonding performance of self-etching adhesives. However, the durability of the bonded-dentine interfaces created subsequent air-abrasion procedures using bioactive glasses will depend also upon the chemical composition of the self-etch adhesive systems.     

Bonding characteristics of self-etching adhesives to intact versus prepared enamel

Purpose: This study tested the null hypothesis that the preparation of the enamel surface would not affect the enamel microtensile bond strengths of self‐etching adhesive materials. Materials and Methods: Ten bovine incisors were trimmed with a diamond saw to obtain a squared enamel surface with an area of 8 × 8 mm. The specimens were randomly assigned to five adhesives: (1) ABF (Kuraray), an experimental two‐bottle self‐etching adhesive; (2) Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray), a two‐bottle self‐etching adhesive; (3) One‐Up Bond F (Tokuyama), an all‐in‐one adhesive; (4) Prompt L‐Pop (3M ESPE), an all‐in‐one adhesive; and (5) Single Bond (3M ESPE), a two‐bottle total‐etch adhesive used as positive control. For each specimen, one half was roughened with a diamond bur for 5 seconds under water spray, whereas the other half was left unprepared. The adhesives were applied as per manufacturers' directions. A universal hybrid composite resin (Filtek Z250, 3M ESPE) was inserted in three layers of 1.5 mm each and light‐cured. Specimens were sectioned in X and Y directions to obtain bonded sticks with a cross‐sectional area of 0.8 ± 0.2 mm². Sticks were tested in tension in an Instron at a cross‐speed of 1 mm per minute. Statistical analysis was carried out with two‐way analysis of variance and Duncan's test at p <. 05. Ten extra specimens were processed for observation under a field‐emission scanning electron microscope. Results: Single Bond, the total‐etch adhesive, resulted in statistically higher microtensile bond strength than any of the other adhesives regardless of the enamel preparation (unprepared = 31.5 MPa; prepared = 34.9 MPa, not statistically different at p < 05). All the self‐etching adhesives resulted in higher microtensile bond strength when enamel was roughened than when enamel was left unprepared. However, for ABF and for Clearfil SE Bond this difference was not statistically significant at p > 05. When applied to ground enamel, mean bond strengths of Prompt L‐Pop were not statistically different from those of Clearfil SE Bond and ABF. One‐Up Bond F did not bond to unprepared enamel. Commercial self‐etching adhesives performed better on prepared enamel than on unprepared enamel. The field‐emission scanning electron microscope revealed a deep interprismatic etching pattern for the total‐etch adhesive, whereas the self‐etching systems resulted in an etching pattern ranging from absent to moderate. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE For the recently introduced all‐in‐one self‐etching dental adhesives, instrumentation of enamel may be critical for their ability to optimally bond to enamel.     

Microtensile bond strength of a filled vs unfilled adhesive to dentin using self-etch and total-etch technique

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of a filled adhesive (One-Step Plus; Bisco) versus an unfilled adhesive (One-Step; Bisco) on the microtensile bond strength (muTBS) to dentin using total-etch (Uni-etch; Bisco) and self-etch (Tyrian SPE; Bisco) techniques. METHODS: Twenty extracted human third molars were ground flat to expose occlusal dentin. After the dentin surfaces were polished with 600-grit SiC paper, the teeth were randomly assigned to four groups according to the bonding agent and technique being used. Dentin surfaces were bonded with One-Step Plus+total-etch; One-Step Plus+self-etch; One-Step+total-etch and One-Step+self-etch. Composite buildups were performed with Clearfil AP-X (Kuraray Medical). Following storage in distilled water at 37 degrees C for 24 h, the bonded specimens were serially sectioned into 0.7 mm-thick slabs and then trimmed to hour-glass shapes with a 1 mm2 cross-sectional area (n=20). Microtensile bond strengths were determined using the EZ-test (Shimadzu) at a cross-head speed of 1 mm/min. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the muTBS between One-Step Plus and One-Step adhesives when they were used with the total-etch and self-etch techniques (p>0.05). However with the total-etch technique both adhesives yielded significantly higher bond strength values than the self-etch technique (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The filled adhesive One-Step Plus did not show any beneficial effect than the unfilled adhesive One-Step on the muTBS to dentin with total-etch and self-etch techniques. Irrespective from the adhesive type, self-etch technique revealed lower bond strengths than the total-etch technique.     

Incompatibility of self-etch adhesives with chemical/dual-cured composites: two-step vs one-step systems

This study tested the null hypothesis that there no difference between two-step and one-step self-etch adhesives in their compatibility with these composites. The microtensile bond strengths (microTBS) of two two-step systems (Clearfil SE Bond, Kuraray and Tyrian SPE/One-Step Plus, BISCO) were compared with two one-step systems (Xeno III, Dentsply DeTrey and Brush&Bond, Parkell) for their coupling to a dual-cured composite. Silver tracer penetration of the four adhesives bonded to a light-cured or a chemical-cured composite was examined using TEM. Significant differences in microTBSs between composite curing modes were seen only in the one-step adhesives. For one-step self-etch adhesives bonded to the chemical-cured composite, TEM revealed signs of frank composite uncoupling along the adhesive-composite interface, which may be attributed to the adverse chemical interaction between the acidic adhesive and the composite. In addition, "water trees" that represent channels of increased permeability with the polymerized adhesive layer were also observed in the one-step adhesives. Both features were absent along the resin-dentin interfaces when chemical-cured composites were coupled to the two-step self-etch adhesives.     

Adhesion to Er:YAG laser and bur prepared root and crown dentine

Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the bond strengths between dentine and resin composite obtained after Er:YAG laser treatment of crown or root dentine used together with self‐etch and total‐etch adhesive systems. Methods: One etch‐and‐rinse adhesive (Single Bond, 3M, USA) and one self‐etch system (Clearfil SE Bond, Kuraray, Japan) were applied to root and crown dentine prepared with a regular bur in a turbine or with an Er:YAG laser. The shear bond strength was determined after thermocycling and statistically analysed using independent t‐tests. Results: Crown sites bonded using Clearfil SE Bond and Single Bond adhesives yielded bond strengths similar to that of root dentine sites (p > 0.05). Clearfil SE Bond was stronger in both the lased and non‐lased groups (p < 0.05). The lowest bond strength was obtained when Single Bond without acid etching was used on Er:YAG ablated dentine. When total‐etch adhesive was used, there were significant differences (p < 0.05) between the laser‐ablated and laser‐ablated/acid‐etched and bur‐cut/acid‐etched groups. Conclusions: Er:YAG laser irradiation of root and crown dentine conducted prior to the adhesive protocol adversely affected adhesion and decreased bond strength compared with traditional preparation.     

A randomized controlled 5-year prospective study of two HEMA-free adhesives,a 1-step self etching and a 3-step etch-and-rinse,in non-carious cervical lesions

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the 5 year clinical dentin bonding effectiveness of two HEMA-free adhesives in Class V non-carious cervical lesions.

Material and methods

A total of 169 Class V restorations were placed in 67 patients with a self-etching adhesive (G-Bond; 67), a 3-step HEMA and TEGDMA free etch-and-rinse (cfm; 51) and a control HEMA-containing etch-and-rinse adhesive (XP Bond; 51) in non-carious cervical lesions without intentional enamel involvement. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and yearly during a 5 year follow-up with modified USPHS criteria. Dentin bonding efficiency was determined by the percentage of lost restorations.

Results

During the 5 years, 159 restorations could be evaluated. Good short time dentin retention was observed for the three adhesives, there all adhesives fulfilled at 18 months the full acceptance ADA criteria. At 5 years a cumulative number of 22 lost restorations (13.8%) was observed. The HEMA-free adhesives showed significantly higher dentin retention compared to the HEMA-containing one. Loss of retention was observed for 5 G-Bond (7.9%), 4 cfm (8.3%) and 13 XP Bond (27.1%) restorations (p < 0.05). No post-operative sensitivity was reported by the participants. No secondary caries was observed.

Significance

The durability in non-carious cervical lesions of the HEMA-free adhesives was successful after 5 years. Despite concerns which have been raised, showed the 1-step SEA one of the best reported clinical dentin bonding effectiveness.     

Effect of dentinal surface preparation on bond strength of self-etching adhesives

PURPOSE: This study examined the effects of cutting dentin with different burs at various speeds on the microtensile bond strength (muTBS) of two self-etching adhesive systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Flat deep dentin surfaces from 50 extracted human third molars were divided into 5 groups (n = 10) according to bur type and speed of rotation: (I) high-speed diamond bur, (II) low-speed diamond bur, (III) high-speed tungsten carbide bur, (IV) low-speed tungsten carbide bur. Controls were abraded with 600-grit SiC paper. A two-step self-etching adhesive, Clearfil SE Bond (SE, Kuraray) and a one-step self-etching adhesive, Clearfil S3 Bond (S3, Kuraray) were applied to dentin surfaces and light cured. Composite buildups were performed using Filtek Z250 (3M ESPE). For lTBS evaluation, composite-dentin beams of 0.8 mm2 were stressed to failure at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The muTBS data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's multiple comparison tests. Representative fractured beams from each group were prepared for fractographic analysis under SEM. RESULTS: Two-way ANOVA showed that the effects of dentin surface preparations, adhesive systems, and their interaction were statistically significant (p < 0.001). The muTBS was the highest when bonding SE to dentin surface prepared with 600-grit SiC abrasive paper (47.3 +/- 7.4 MPa), followed by high-speed tungsten carbide burs (40.8 +/- 6.1 MPa), and the lowest when bonding S3 to dentin surfaces prepared with a high-speed diamond bur (15.2 +/- 6.2 MPa). SEM observation of the fractured surfaces revealed mixed and adhesive failures for SE groups, while in the S3 groups, adhesive failures predominated with numerous inclusion droplets. CONCLUSION: Higher bond strengths are achieved with SE bond when applied on dentin surfaces prepared with tungsten carbide burs. Proper bur and adhesive selection are essential to optimize dentin adhesion of self-etching adhesives.     

Relationship between composite fracture toughness and bond strengths to enamel and dentine

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the association between the fracture toughness of two nanofilled‐hybrid resin composites (Clearfil Majesty Esthetic [CME], Kuraray Medical, Japan; Estelite Σ [ES], Tokuyama, Japan) and their bond strengths to enamel and dentine mediated by a self‐etching primer system (Clearfil SE Bond [CSE]; Kuraray). Methods: Twenty‐four permanent human molars were sectioned into enamel and dentine specimens and finished with 600‐grit silicon carbide paper, bonded with CSE and either CME or ES, for μ‐shear bond strength (μSBS) and μ‐tensile bond strength (μTBS). The specimens were tested until failure at a cross‐head speed of 1 mm/min, failure loads recorded, bond strengths calculated and results analysed using independent samples t‐tests. Eight single‐notched bar‐shaped specimens, 30 mm × 5.2 mm × 2.2 mm, were prepared for each resin composite and fracture toughness measured using four‐point bending at a cross‐head speed of 0.5 mm/min. Results were analysed using independent samples t‐tests. Results: For μSBS and μTBS, there was no significant difference between the resin composites for enamel or dentine. The fracture toughness of CME was significantly higher than that of ES. Conclusions: For both enamel and dentine, resin composite fracture toughness affected neither μTBS nor μSBS to enamel or dentine.