Shear bond strength of different adhesives to Er:YAG laser-prepared dentin

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine the influence of Er:YAG laser on the shear bond strength of three different adhesives to lased dentin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy specimens obtained from 35 extracted human molars were embedded in polyester resin and ground with silicon carbide papers. The samples were divided into seven groups. 1. Er:YAG laser (Key Laser 3, KaVo) + Clearfil Protect Bond (Kuraray); 2. Er:YAG laser + Clearfil tri-S Bond (Kuraray); 3. Er:YAG laser + 37% H3PO4 + Single Bond 2 (3M-ESPE); 4. Er:YAG laser + Single Bond 2; 5. conventional method + Clearfil Protect Bond; 6. conventional method + Clearfil tri-S Bond; 7. conventional method + 37% H3PO4 + Single Bond 2. The samples were subjected to shear bond testing 24 h after bonding. Statistical analyses were carried out by two-way ANOVA, t-test, one-way ANOVA, post-hoc Tukey's and Dunnett C test (p = 0.05). RESULTS: Only the Er:YAG laser + Clearfil tri-S Bond group demonstrated significantly higher bond strengths vs conventionally prepared specimens (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the shear bond strengths of Single Bond 2 adhesive applied to laser- vs bur-treated specimens (p > 0.05). In laser prepared samples, Clearfil Protect Bond showed the highest scores (p < 0.05), whereas in conventionally prepared groups, no statistical differences were observed between Clearfil Protect Bond and Clearfil tri-S Bond (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Er:YAG laser irradiation did not adversely affect the shear bond strength of Single Bond 2 and Clearfil Protect Bond to dentin, whereas it increased the shear bond strength values of Clearfil tri-S Bond.     

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.     

Role of preliminary etching for one‐step self‐etch adhesives

Taschner M, Nato F, Mazzoni A, Frankenberger R, Krämer N, Di Lenarda R, Petschelt A, Breschi L. Role of preliminary etching for one‐step self‐etch adhesives.
Eur J Oral Sci 2010; 118: 517–524. © 2010 Eur J Oral Sci The aim of this study was to analyse the effect of preliminary phosphoric acid etching of enamel and dentine before the application of two, one‐step self‐etch adhesive systems. The systems were applied onto acid‐etched or smear‐layer‐covered enamel and dentine. The treatment groups were as follows: group 1, Adper Easy Bond (3M ESPE) on etched substrate; group 2, Adper Easy Bond (control); group 3, iBond Self‐Etch (Heraeus Kulzer) on etched substrate; and group 4, iBond Self‐Etch (control). Enamel and dentine bond strengths were calculated using microshear and microtensile bond‐strength tests. Additional specimens were prepared to evaluate nanoleakage at the dentine–adhesive interface and were investigated using light microscopy or transmission electron microscopy. Both adhesives demonstrated higher microshear bond strengths when enamel was pre‐acid‐etched with phosphoric acid (Adper Easy Bond 28.7 ± 4.8 MPa; iBond Self‐Etch 19.7 ± 3.6 MPa) compared with controls (Adper Easy Bond 19.2 ± 3.3 MPa; iBond Self‐Etch 17.5 ± 2.7 MPa) and increased microtensile bond strength when applied on acid‐etched (Adper Easy Bond 35.8 ± 5.7 MPa; iBond Self‐Etch 24.3 ± 7.9 MPa) vs. smear‐layer‐covered dentine (Adper Easy Bond 26.9 ± 6.2 MPa; iBond Self‐Etch 17.6 ± 4.3 MPa). Adper Easy Bond showed lower nanoleakage than iBond Self‐Etch, irrespective of preliminary etching. The results of this study support the use of phosphoric acid etching before the application of one‐step self‐etch adhesive systems.     

Influence of ageing on self‐etch adhesives: one‐step vs. two‐step systems

The aim of this study was to evaluate microtensile bond strength (μTBS) to dentine, interfacial nanoleakage expression, and stability after ageing, of two‐step vs. one‐step self‐etch adhesives. Human molars were cut to expose middle/deep dentine, assigned to groups (n = 15), and treated with the following bonding systems: (i) Optibond XTR (a two‐step self‐etch adhesive; Kerr), (ii) Clearfil SE Bond (a two‐step self‐etch adhesive; Kuraray), (iii) Adper Easy Bond (a one‐step self‐etch adhesive; 3M ESPE), and (iv) Bond Force (a one‐step self‐etch adhesive; Tokuyama). Specimens were processed for μTBS testing after 24 h, 6 months, or 1 yr of storage in artificial saliva at 37°C. Nanoleakage expression was examined in similarly processed additional specimens. At baseline the μTBS results ranked in the following order: Adper Easy Bond = Optibond XTR ≥Clearfil SE = Bond Force, and interfacial nanoleakage analysis showed Clearfil SE Bond = Adper Easy Bond = Optibond XTR> Bond Force. After 1 yr of storage, Optibond XTR, Clearfil SE Bond, and Adper Easy Bond showed higher μTBS and lower interfacial nanoleakage expression compared with Bond Force. In conclusion, immediate bond strength, nanoleakage expression, and stability over time were not related to the number of steps of the bonding systems, but to their chemical formulations.     

Comparison between universal adhesives and two‐step self‐etch adhesives in terms of dentin bond fatigue durability in self‐etch mode

This aim of this study was to compare universal adhesives and two‐step self‐etch adhesives in terms of dentin bond fatigue durability in self‐etch mode. Three universal adhesives – Clearfil Universal, G‐Premio Bond, and Scotchbond Universal Adhesive – and three‐two‐step self‐etch adhesives – Clearfil SE Bond, Clearfil SE Bond 2, and OptiBond XTR – were used. The initial shear bond strength and shear fatigue strength of resin composite bonded to adhesive on dentin in self‐etch mode were determined. Scanning electron microscopy observations of fracture surfaces after bond strength tests were also made. The initial shear bond strength of universal adhesives was material dependent, unlike that of two‐step self‐etch adhesives. The shear fatigue strength of Scotchbond Universal Adhesive was not significantly different from that of two‐step self‐etch adhesives, unlike the other universal adhesives. The shear fatigue strength of universal adhesives differed depending on the type of adhesive, unlike those of two‐step self‐etch adhesives. The results of this study encourage the continued use of two‐step self‐etch adhesive over some universal adhesives but suggest that changes to the composition of universal adhesives may lead to a dentin bond fatigue durability similar to that of two‐step self‐etch adhesives.     

Bonding of acid-etch and self-etch adhesives to human fluorosed dentine

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our laboratory study was to determine the bonding efficacy of two-step self-etching primer system (Clearfil SE Bond), all-in-one adhesive (Clearfil Tri S Bond) and acid-etching system (Single Bond) to human fluorosed dentine. METHODS: Forty-eight human molars were grouped according to modified Thylstrup-Fejerskov index (TFI) into normal (N, TFI 0), mild fluorosis (ML, TFI 1-3) and moderate fluorosis (MD, TFI 4-6). Superficial dentine was exposed and ground with 600-grit silicon carbide paper. Teeth of each group were randomly divided into three sub-groups. Each sub-group was treated with one of the three bonding systems. A resin composite was built up on the bonded surfaces and stored in water at 37 degrees C for 24h. They were serially sectioned in buccal-lingual direction into 0.7-1.0mm thick slabs. Slices were trimmed for microtensile bond test and stressed in tension at a crosshead speed of 1mm/min. The data were analyzed with two-way ANOVA (p=0.05). The adhesive/dentine interfaces of the bonded specimens were examined by a FE-SEM. RESULTS: Significantly higher microtensile bond strength (microTBS) was found with Clearfil SE Bond to mild fluorosed dentine than did Single Bond and Clearfil Tri S Bond. Lower microTBS were found for Single Bond (not significant) and Clearfil Tri S Bond than Clearfil SE Bond with moderately fluorosed dentine. Thickness of the hybrid layer produced by Clearfil SE Bond in mild and moderately fluorosed groups was less than with normal dentine. CONCLUSION: Two-step self-etching system, Clearfil SE Bond, showed a higher bonding performance to fluorosed dentine than Single Bond and Tri S Bond.     

Micro-tensile bond strength of two adhesives to Erbium:YAG-lased vs. bur-cut enamel and dentin

The purpose of the study was to assess the hypotheses that laser irradiation is equally effective for bonding as traditional acid-etch procedures, and that tooth substrate prepared either by Erbium:YAG laser or diamond bur is equally receptive to adhesive procedures. Buccal/oral enamel and mid-coronal dentin were laser-irradiated using an Erbium:YAG laser. A total-etch adhesive (OptiBond FL) applied with and without prior acid-etching and a self-etch adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond) were employed to bond the composite. The micro-tensile bond strength (microTBS) was determined after 24 h of storage in water. Failure patterns were analysed using a stereo-microscope, and samples were processed for Field-emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (Fe-SEM) evaluation. Unbonded, lased enamel and dentin surfaces were evaluated using Fe-SEM as well. The total-etch adhesive bonded significantly less effectively to lased than to bur-cut enamel/dentin. Laser 'conditioning' was clearly less effective than acid-etching. Moreover, acid etching lased enamel and dentin significantly improved the microTBS of OptiBond FL. The self-etch adhesive performed equally to lased as to bur-cut enamel, but significantly less effectively to lased than to bur-cut dentin. It is concluded that cavities prepared by laser appear less receptive to adhesive procedures than conventional bur-cut cavities.     

Influence of Er,Cr:YSGG laser treatment on the microtensile bond strength of adhesives to dentin

PURPOSE: In light of the concept of minimally invasive dentistry, erbium lasers have been considered as an alternative technique to the use of diamond burs for cavity preparation. The purpose of this study was to assess the bonding effectiveness of adhesives to Er,Cr:YSGG laser-irradiated dentin using irradiation settings specific for cavity preparation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-four midcoronal dentin surfaces, obtained from sound human molars, were irradiated with an Er,Cr:YSGG laser or prepared with a diamond bur using a high-speed turbine. One etch-and-rinse (Optibond FL/Kerr) and three self-etching adhesives (Adper Prompt L-Pop/3M ESPE, Clearfil SE Bond/Kuraray, and Clearfil S3 Bond/Kuraray) were used to bond the composite to dentin. The microtensile bond strength (microTBS) was determined after 24 h of storage in water at 37 degrees C. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to determine pairwise statistical differences (p < 0.05). Prepared dentin surfaces, adhesive interfaces, and failure patterns were analyzed using a stereomicroscope and Field-emission gun Scanning Electron Microscopy (Feg-SEM). RESULTS: Significantly lower microTBS was observed to laser-irradiated than to bur-cut dentin (p < 0.05), irrespective of the adhesive employed. Feg-SEM photomicrographs of lased dentin revealed an imbricate patterned substrate and the presence of microcracks at the dentin surface. CONCLUSION: Morphological alterations produced by Er,Cr:YSGG laser-irradiation adversely influence the bonding effectiveness of adhesives to dentin.     

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.     

Influence of crosshead speed on micro-tensile bond strength of two-step adhesive systems.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of crosshead speed on the micro-tensile bond strength of two separate adhesive systems to dentin. METHODS: The systems used were the Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray Medical) and the Single Bond (3M ESPE) combined with a resin composite Clearfil AP-X (Kuraray Medical). Dentin surfaces of bovine madibular incisors were primed with self-etching primer followed by air blowing for Clearfil SE Bond, or etched with phosphoric acid followed by rinsing with distilled water for Single Bond, and adhesive was applied. The resin composite was then built up in three layers and light activated. After 24 h storage in water, specimens were sectioned and trimmed to a cross-sectional area of 1 mm(2) and subjected to a micro-tensile bond-strength test. Ten samples per test group were tested at crosshead speeds of 0.5, 1.0, 5.0 and 10.0 mm/min. Micro-tensile bond-strength values (in MPa) were calculated from the peak load at failure divided by the specimen surface area. Two-way ANOVA was performed at the 0.05 probability level. RESULTS: The mean dentin bond strength at different crosshead speeds ranged from 34.6 to 37.1MPa for Clearfil SE Bond and from 44.3 to 50.4 MPa for Single Bond. There was no significant difference among the same adhesive systems with the different crosshead speeds tested. SIGNIFICANCE: The influence of the crosshead speed might be negligible when measuring micro-tensile bond strengths.     

The Effect of Endodontic Irrigants on the Microtensile Bond Strength of Dentin Adhesives

IntroductionThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength of a total etch (XP-Bond) and a self-etch (Clearfil SE Bond) adhesive system to dentine surfaces treated using endodontic irrigants.MethodsTwenty-four freshly extracted third molars were used. After creating a smear layer on the coronal midthird portion of the crowns, the teeth were divided into three groups and surfaces were irrigated with distilled water, 5.25% NaOCl + 17% EDTA, and 1.3% NaOCl + BioPure MTAD, respectively. Each group was divided into two subgroups, and a self-etching adhesive and an etch-and-rinse adhesive were applied respectively. The teeth were restored with a composite material and sectioned to produce sticks for microtensile bond testing.ResultsThe microtensile bond strength of the MTAD + Clearfil SE group was found to be significantly lower than the microtensile bond strength of the distilled water + Clearfil SE Bond group and the NaOCl, EDTA, + Clearfil SE Bond group (p = 0.0001, p = 0.009).ConclusionsBecause of the significant reduction of Clearfil SE Bond to coronal dentine after MTAD application, an etch-and rinse adhesive such as XP-Bond may be preferred if this irrigant has been chosen during endodontic treatment.     

Microtensile bond strength of total-etch and self-etching adhesives to caries-affected dentine

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the microtensile bond strength of total-etch or self-etch adhesives to caries-affected versus normal dentine, and to correlate these bond strengths with DIAGNOdent laser fluorescence and Knoop microhardness (KH) measurements of the substrates. METHODS: Extracted carious human molars were ground to expose flat surfaces where the caries lesion was surrounded by normal dentine. Surfaces were bonded with either Prime & Bond NT, Scotchbond 1, Clearfil SE Bond or Prompt L-Pop, according to manufacturers' recommendations. A crown was built up using resin composite (Tetric Ceram). After storage in water (37 degrees C, 24 h), teeth were vertically serially sectioned into 0.7 mm thick slabs and trimmed to yield 1 mm(2) test area that contained either caries-affected or normal dentine. Samples were tested in tension in an Instron machine at 1 mm/min. The quality of the dentine just beneath each fractured specimen was measured by laser fluorescence and KH. RESULTS: Total-etch adhesives yielded higher bond strengths than self-etching systems. Significantly lower results were obtained with Prompt L-Pop. All the adhesives attained higher strengths in normal than in caries-affected dentine, but the differences were only significant for Prime & Bond NT and Clearfil SE Bond. Higher laser fluorescence values and lower KH (p<0.001) were recorded in caries-affected dentine compared to normal dentine. CONCLUSIONS: The total-etch adhesives evaluated produced higher bond strengths to normal and caries-affected dentine than self-etching systems. Laser fluorescence measurements discriminated caries-affected dentine from normal dentine, and were strongly correlated with KH. However, laser fluorescence and KH did not permit high correlations with resin-dentine bond strengths in caries-affected dentine.     

The effect of different adhesive system applications on push-out bond strengths of glass fiber posts

PURPOSE

Over the past years, the adhesion of fiber posts luted with simplified adhesive systems has been a matter of great interest. The aim of this study was to assess the post retentive potential of a self-adhesive resin cement using different adhesive systems to compare the push-out bond strengths of fiber posts.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The post spaces of 56 mandibular premolar roots were prepared and divided into 4 experimental groups and further divided into 2 subgroups according to testing time (n=7). The fiber posts (Rely X Fiber Post) were luted with a self-adhesive resin cement (RelyX Unicem) and one of the following adhesive systems: no adhesive, a total-etch adhesive resin (Single Bond), a two-step self-etch adhesive resin (Clearfil SE Bond) and a one-step self-etch adhesive resin (Clearfil S3 Bond). Each root was cut horizontally, and 1.5 mm thick six root segments were prepared. Push-out tests were performed after one week or three months (0.5 mm/min). Statistical analysis were performed with three-way ANOVA (α=.05).

RESULTS

Cervical root segments showed higher bond strength values than middle segments. Adhesive application increased the bond strength. For one week group, the total-etch adhesive resin Single Bond showed higher bond strength than the self-adhesive resin cement RelyX Unicem applied without adhesive resin at middle region. For 3 months group, the two-step self-etch adhesive resin Clearfil SE Bond showed the highest bond strength for both regions. Regarding the time considered, Clearfil SE Bond 3 months group showed higher bond strength values than one week group.

CONCLUSION

Using the adhesive resins in combination with the self-adhesive resin cement improves the bond strengths. The bond strength values of two-step self-etch adhesive resin Clearfil SE Bond improved as time passes.     

Microtensile bond strength between crown and root dentin and two adhesive systems

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Since bonding agent effectiveness is usually evaluated on coronal substrates, available knowledge for judging the effectiveness of bonds to root dentin is insufficient. PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the bond strength of 2 adhesive systems to crown, cervical finish line, and post space dentin. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty bovine maxillary incisors were used in this study. Teeth were sectioned along the cemento-enamel junction using a low-speed diamond blade to separate the crowns and roots. Then the crowns and roots were each divided into 2 groups, according to the 2 adhesive systems tested (n=10). The facial enamel surfaces of the crowns were abraded with 600-grit silicon carbide paper to expose flat, midcoronal dentin surfaces. Drills and a diamond rotary cutting instrument were used in a low-speed handpiece to prepare post spaces in the root canals. The same diamond rotary instrument was used to prepare horizontally flat surfaces in the cervical areas, similar to the horizontal aspect of a shoulder finish line. Composite resin was placed incrementally into the post spaces, over the flat cervical shoulder areas, and on the coronal dentin. Bonded beam specimens (0.5 mm(2) of cross-sectional area) derived from crown, cervical finish line, and post space dentin, were prepared for microtensile bond testing and tested in tension. Data were analyzed using 2-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc test (alpha=.05). Failure patterns of tested specimens were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS: The mean tensile bond strength values (SD) (MPa) were: Single Bond-crown: 29.8 (4.0); Single Bond-finish line: 18.7 (4.3); Single Bond-post space: 17.0 (4.8); Clearfil SE Bond-crown: 30.1 (6.4); Clearfil SE Bond-finish line: 30.4 (5.3); and Clearfil SE Bond-post space: 17.0 (4.2). Bond strengths to post space dentin were lower than those to coronal dentin for both adhesives (P<.001). However, no significant difference was observed between coronal and finish line dentin for Clearfil SE Bond. CONCLUSION: Bond strength was reduced when adhesives were used in bonding to post space dentin. Cervical finish line sites bonded using Clearfil SE Bond adhesive yielded bond strength similar to that of coronal dentin sites.     

Effect of surface preparation on microtensile bond strength of three adhesive systems to bovine enamel

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the microtensile bond strength (microTBS) of three adhesives to bovine enamel prepared with 600-grit silicon carbide paper, diamond rotary instrument, or carbide bur. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Bovine teeth (n = 36) were randomly divided into three treatment groups and bonded using a total-etch adhesive (Single Bond, 3M ESPE), a self-etching primer system (Clearfil SE Bond, Kuraray), or a self-etching adhesive (One-Up Bond F, Tokuyama). A 4-mm composite crown was built on the bonded surfaces and specimens were stored in water for one day at 37 degrees C. Specimens were sectioned into 0.7-mm-thick slabs, trimmed to a cross-sectional area of 1 mm2, and loaded to failure at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min using a tabletop tester (EZ-Test, Shimadzu). Microtensile bond strength data were analyzed using ANOVA and Fisher's PLSD test (alpha = 0.05). RESULTS: The bond strength of each self-etching system was lower when the enamel was prepared using a diamond or carbide bur, rather than with 600-grit silicon carbide paper. Differences in microTBS between carbide- and diamond-prepared surfaces were not significant. The surface preparation method did not affect the total-etch system. CONCLUSION: Different preparation instruments are unlikely to affect resin-enamel bond strengths.     

Shear bond strength of two adhesive systems bonded to Er:YAG laser-prepared dentin

Dentinal surfaces prepared with an Er:YAG laser have distinctly different characteristics compared to those prepared with conventional instruments. The objective of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength of a total-etch adhesive system and a self-etch adhesive system to dentin, prepared conventionally or with an Er:YAG laser. Specimens that were prepared with a diamond bur and treated with the total-etch adhesive showed the highest mean bond strength, followed by specimens prepared with the laser and treated with the total-etch adhesive, specimens prepared with a diamond bur and treated with the self-etch adhesive, and specimens prepared with the laser and treated with the self-etch adhesive, but there were no differences among the groups (P > 0.05). These data indicate that the tested adhesive systems promote similar shear bond strengths, whether the dentin is prepared with a diamond bur or an Er:YAG laser, and that an Er:YAG laser is a suitable cavity preparation method that promotes an adequate surface for a posterior adhesive procedure.     

Effect of dentin conditioners on the microtensile bond strength of a conventional and a self-etching primer adhesive system.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of different dentin treatments on the microtensile bond strength of a self-etching primer and a simplified, total-etch adhesive system. METHODS: Flat dentin surfaces were created on extracted human third molars. The surfaces were treated with one of the following conditioners: self-etching primer for 20 s (Clearfil SE Primer), 37% phosphoric acid for 15 s or 0.5 M EDTA for 30 s. Conditioned surfaces were then bonded with either Clearfil SE Bond or Single Bond followed by resin composite (Z250) build-ups constructed incrementally. Application of SE Primer was included when Clearfil SE Bond was used, after phosphoric acid and EDTA conditioning. After 24 h storage in water at 37 degrees C, the teeth were longitudinally sectioned across the bonded interface to produce beams with 1.0 mm2 of adhesive area, tested with the microtensile method at a rate of 0.5 mm/min. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test. RESULTS: The highest bond strength mean was found for the combination SE Primer/Single Bond (58.5+/-20.8 MPa), followed by the EDTA/Clearfil SE Bond (47.8+/-15.1 MPa) and phosphoric acid/Single Bond (40.9+/-14.3 MPa). The remaining combinations showed statistically similar (p>0.05) tensile bond strength. SIGNIFICANCE: The bond performance of the adhesives tested was dependent on the dentin conditioner. Pre-treatment with a mild etchant such as 0.5 M EDTA improved the bond strength of Clearfil SE Bond. Single Bond performed better when a self-etching primer was used as the dentin conditioner, probably by preventing the formation of a defective zone at the base of the hybrid layer. Overall results indicate that higher bond strengths can be achieved by conditioning dentin with milder etchants, suggesting that deeper demineralization may prevent proper resin infiltration, hence compromising the bond.     

Resin adhesion to caries-affected dentine after different removal methods

BACKGROUND: Caries-affected dentine is the common bonding substrate when treating a patient. At present, there are many methods used for caries removal. The aim of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength of two adhesives (Clearfil Protect Bond and OptiBond Solo Plus Total-Etch) to caries-affected dentine after three different caries removal methods. METHODS: Extracted carious human third molars were used and caries-affected dentine surfaces were obtained from one of the three removal methods: (i) round steel bur in a slow-speed handpiece; (ii) Er:YAG laser; or (iii) 600-grit silicon carbide abrasive paper. Each of the adhesives was used to bond resin composite to the caries-affected dentine according to the manufacturers' instructions. Hourglass-shaped specimens were prepared and stressed in tension at 1mm/min. Data were analysed using two-way analysis of variance and least significant difference test. RESULTS: Clearfil Protect Bond showed significantly lower bond strength than OptiBond Solo Plus Total-Etch after caries removal with round steel bur, but the opposite was found for specimens treated with silicon carbide abrasive paper. For laser-treated dentine, no significant differences between the adhesives were revealed. CONCLUSIONS: Besides the differences in adhesives, different caries removal methods seem to influence resin adhesion to caries-affected dentine.     

Relationship between adhesive thickness and microtensile bond strength

This study evaluated the effect of the thickness of the adhesive resin layer of two commercially available resin bonding systems on bond strengths (Single Bond and Liner Bond 2V). The adhesive of Single Bond contains ethanol and water as solvents and is applied using the moist-bonding technique. The adhesive of Liner Bond 2V contains no solvents and is applied after a self-etching primer treatment. Forty-six caries-free molars were ground flat to expose the dentin surface and polished with #800-grit silicon carbide paper under running water. A vinyl tape punched with a 6 mm diameter hole was then placed on the dentin surface to demarcate the area for bonding. The thickness of the adhesive resin layer was varied by stacking an increasing numbers of vinyl tapes together. The teeth were randomly divided into two groups and treated with either Clearfil Liner Bond 2V or Single Bond. They were further divided into subgroups according to the number of tapes placed on the dentin surface. After the bonding procedures the teeth were incrementally restored with Clearfil AP-X resin composite, building a 5 mm high crown to produce sufficient bulk for the microtensile bond test and stored in tap water at 37 degrees C for 24 hours. The teeth were then sectioned along their long axis into 0.7 mm thick slabs and trimmed for the microtensile bond test using a super-fine diamond bur. The thickness of the adhesive resin layer was then measured with a light microscope and the slabs tested in tension at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/minute. The results were subjected to statistical analysis by a one-way analysis of variance and linear regressions with 95% confidence intervals. The thickness of the Clearfil Liner Bond 2V adhesive layer ranged from 5 mm-1500 mm, and for Single Bond, it varied from < 7.5 mm-430 mm. For Clearfil Liner Bond 2V, bond strengths increased significantly as the thickness of bonding layer increased (p < 0.05). However, the bond strengths of the Single Bond decreased significantly with increased thickness of the bonding layer (p < 0.05).     

Shear bond strength and SEM evaluation of composite bonded to Er:YAG laser-prepared dentin and enamel.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate dentin and enamel bond strength to resin composite following high-speed rotary or Er:YAG laser preparation using a total etch adhesive system. The microstructure of resin-tooth interfaces was also investigated. METHODS: Human dentin and enamel specimens were prepared with a high-speed handpiece (KaVo) or Er:YAG laser (DELight) at manufacturer's recommended settings and etched with either 37% H(3)PO(4), laser etched, or not etched. Composite rods (Z-250, 3M/ESPE) were bonded to specimens with an adhesive (Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose, 3M/ESPE). After thermocycling, specimens were tested in shear to failure. RESULTS: Two-factor ANOVA detected significant differences in the main effects of preparation and etch type, and interaction (p<0.001). Post hoc analyses showed that in both dentin and enamel, only the acid-etched specimens had significantly higher mean bond strengths, with rotary-prepared specimens having significantly higher mean bond strengths versus laser prepared specimens. Within each preparation type, in both dentin and enamel, acid etch was better than laser etch, and laser etch was better than no etch. Scanning electron microscopy of laser-ablated specimens demonstrated significant surface scaling and subsurface fissuring beyond normal resin penetration depth. SIGNIFICANCE: Adhesion to laser-ablated or laser-etched dentin and enamel was inferior to that of conventional rotary preparation and acid etching.