不同方法处理丁香油酚暂封面对牙本质粘接强度的影响

目的:评价用不同方法处理使用氧化锌丁香油糊剂(zinc oxide-eugenol,ZOE)的牙本质表面对牙本质粘接系统微拉伸强度的影响。方法:选择因正畸拔除的完整、无龋前磨牙。用慢速锯去除面牙釉质,对照牙表面不使用ZOE;实验牙在暴露的牙本质表面涂ZOE。1周后,实验试件分别用方法a:机械去除;方法b:超声波清洁 酒精擦拭;方法c:超声波清洁 浮石打磨,3种不同方法去除ZOE。再分别使用2种牙本质粘接系统,用微拉伸法测试粘接强度。结果:单因素方差分析提示不同处理ZOE的方法对牙本质粘接系统的微拉伸粘接强度有显著影响(P<0.05),使用方法a后微拉伸粘接强度仍有显著下降,有统计学意义(P<0.05)。使用方法b和方法c后对微拉伸粘接强度无显著影响(P>0.05)。结论:使用超声波清洁 酒精擦拭或者超声波清洁 浮石打磨能显著降低ZOE对自酸蚀系统Clearfil SE Bond和iBond粘接强度的不利影响。     

2%氯己定对牙本质自酸蚀粘接强度影响的初步研究

目的采用微拉伸方法检测基质金属蛋白酶抑制剂（2％氯己定）是否影响牙本质自酸蚀粘接的粘接强度。方法将8颗新鲜拔除的人下颌第三磨牙去除冠部釉质,暴露中层牙本质,随机分成两组,对照组用Clearfil SE Bond粘接剂粘接,实验组粘接前用2％氯己定处理粘接面牙本质,硬组织切片机切成1mm×1mm×8mm的微拉伸试件40个,测试两组即刻和水储存6个月时的微拉伸强度,并对断裂样本进行电镜观察。结果对照组和实验组的即刻微拉伸强度分别为40．56±2．78Mpa、41．20±2．66Mpa,两组即刻粘接强度无统计学差异（P〉0．05）;6个月时微拉伸强度实验组高于对照组（P〈0．05）。结论2％氯己定对牙本质自酸蚀粘接的即刻粘接强度没有影响;经过6个月储存后,能够减缓粘接强度的下降。     

氯已定预处理对两步法自酸蚀粘接剂牙本质粘接界面稳定性的影响

目的：探讨氯已定预处理对两步法自酸蚀粘接剂的牙本质粘接界面稳定性的影响.方法：40颗离体人磨牙沿垂直于牙长轴的方向切割,暴露冠中部牙本质作为粘接面,牙本质试件随机分为两组,一组在粘接处理前涂布0.2％氯已定为实验组,一组无预处理为对照组,两组经两步法自酸蚀粘接剂SE Bond处理后,堆积复合树脂制备成粘接试件.每组随机抽取2个试件借助微拉曼光谱仪分析粘接剂的双键转化率,剩余的18个试件随机分为两个亚组,分别于即刻和冷热循环5000次后检测微拉伸粘接强度和界面的纳米渗漏情况.结果：0.2％氯已定预处理对SE Bond的树脂双键转化率无显著性影响（P＞0.05）.即刻测试时,对照组和实验组间的微拉伸粘接强度和纳米渗漏差异无统计学意义（PP ＞0.05）.冷热循环老化处理后,实验组的微拉伸粘接强度显著高于对照组,纳米渗漏程度显著低于对照组（P＜0.05）.结论：0.2％氯已定预处理不会干扰SE Bond的树脂聚合,且可提高其与牙本质粘接界面的稳定性.     

Nd:YAG激光增加非龋性硬化牙本质全酸蚀粘接强度的实验研究

目的 通过微拉伸粘接强度实验,探讨激光对全酸蚀粘接剂处理后的非龋性硬化牙本质与复合树脂粘接强度的影响.方法 选择牙本质视觉分级为3级以上的(牙合)面磨损后牙10颗,每颗牙以低速锯垂直于牙本质表面,将硬化牙本质分为面积相等的两部分(约12 mm2),按随机数字表法将这两部分分为实验组和对照组,实验组经Nd∶YAG激光(1 W,10 Hz)处理后,使用Scotchbond (STB)酸蚀、涂布粘接剂Adper Single bond 2(ASB)联合Z350复合树脂充填,对照组使用STB酸蚀、涂布粘接剂ASB联合Z350复合树脂充填.置于37 ℃生理盐水中24 h后,制作微拉伸试件并测试微拉伸粘接强度,体视显微镜下观察断裂模式并分类.采用SPSS13.0软件对微拉伸粘接强度值做t检验.结果 实验组粘接强度[(26.11±1. 62)Mpa]显著高于对照组[(22.27±2.16)Mpa],差异有统计学意义(P=0.006).体视显微镜下可见断裂多发生于牙本质-树脂粘接面.结论 Nd∶YAG激光能够提高硬化牙本质与全酸蚀粘接系统的粘接强度.     

一步法自酸蚀粘接剂微拉伸粘接强度的研究

目的评价一步法白酸蚀粘接剂的牙本质微拉伸粘接强度，观察并分析样本断裂类型。方法选择新拔除的人无龋下颌第三磨牙12颗，分别用3种一步法、1种两步法的白酸蚀粘接剂进行牙本质粘接。用微拉伸测力仪测试粘接强度，并用体视显微镜和扫描电镜观察样本断裂类型。结果3种一步法白酸蚀粘接剂的微拉伸强度分别为：材料A（Adper Prompt）（23．36±2．55）MPa；材料B（Clearfil S^3 Bond）（30．46±3．82）MPa；材料C（Xenon Ⅲ）（34．59±3．46）MPa；1种两步法自酸蚀粘接剂材料D（Clearfil SE Bond）的微拉伸粘接强度为（45．06±5．29）MPa。材料D微拉伸粘接强度最高，与其他3组相比，差异具有统计学意义（P〈0．01）。样本断裂均发生于粘接界面，未观察到复合树脂或牙本质内聚破坏。结论一步法白酸蚀粘接剂的牙本质粘接强度低于两步法白酸蚀粘接剂，但多数仍可满足临床对树脂粘接强度的要求。     

负压技术对全酸蚀牙本质粘接系统粘接效果的影响

目的 研究负压法对全酸蚀牙本质粘接系统的粘接界面微观结构及微拉伸粘接强度的影响.方法 8颗离体牙去冠釉沿中线切开并对应分为两组,对照组按厂家说明操作,实验组涂布处理剂、粘接剂后均给予0.04MPa负压处理,各组光固化后堆塑树脂制成粘接试件,每组随机抽取两个试件使用扫描电子显微镜(SEM)观察粘接界面,剩余试件进行微拉伸强度测试(μTBS)后电镜观察分析断面.结果 SEM示对照组的粘接剂树脂突短小稀疏;实验组的粘接剂树脂突更长更致密更均匀.实验组μTBS(84.36±21.80)MPa明显高于对照组(45.12±4.46)MPa且差异有统计学意义.断面分析对照组以界面破坏为主,实验组以混合破坏为主.结论 采用负压加压技术处理后可显著提高全酸蚀粘接系统对牙本质的粘接强度.     

四种自酸蚀粘接剂牙本质粘接界面纳米渗漏比较

目的 比较4种自酸蚀粘接剂牙本质粘接界面纳米渗漏及微观形态。方法 选取16颗无龋人离体第三磨牙,制备统一的牙本质玷污层,分别用4种自酸蚀粘接剂A( Adper Prompt)、B( iBond)、C(XenoⅢ)及D(SE Bond)按使用说明进行粘接处理,垂直粘接面切成0.9 mmx4.0 mm试件,避光贮存于氨...     

不同种类自酸蚀黏结系统黏结强度的比较研究

目的　比较自行研制的自酸蚀黏结系统B1、B2与商品自酸蚀黏结系统Contax、ClearfilSEBond及磷酸酸蚀系统的剪切强度 (SBS) ,评价它们对牙釉质、牙本质的黏结能力。方法　人磨牙 35颗制得牙釉质、牙本质试件各 35个 ,均随机分为 5组 ,分别用B1、B2、Contax、ClearfilSEBond及磷酸酸蚀系统处理后 ,黏结树脂进行SBS测试。结果　不同种类黏结系统牙釉质的SBS之间差异无显著性 (P >0 .0 5 ) ,对于牙本质 ,磷酸酸蚀系统的SBS(10 .31± 3.0 9)MPa低于B1(19.32± 2 .94 )MPa、B2 (18.90± 2 .5 2 )MPa、Contax (19.0 8± 7.0 0 )MPa和ClearfilSEBond(2 0 .81± 1.0 4 )MPa ,P <0 .0 5。结论　自行研制的自酸蚀黏结系统B1、B2对牙釉质、牙本质均有较理想的黏结力 ,不同种类自酸蚀黏结系统B1、B2、Contax、ClearfilSEBond对牙本质的黏结力均优于磷酸酸蚀系统     

乙醇润湿对2种全酸蚀粘接剂粘接性能的影响

目的:探究牙本质粘接前用乙醇润湿对临床常用2种全酸蚀粘接剂粘接强度和粘接界面质量的影响。方法:24颗新鲜拔除人无龋磨牙随机分为6组,2种粘接剂Single Bond(SB)、Gluma Comfort Bond(GB),每种分成3组用不同方法粘接即:对照组(粘结剂常规应用组)、乙醇润湿1min组、乙醇润湿2min组。每组牙制作微拉伸试件,测试24h微拉伸粘接强度(MTBS),用体视显微镜观察断面类型。用扫描电镜观察粘接界面混合层和树脂突形态。结果:乙醇润湿2min的方法使以上两种粘接剂的24h瞬时微拉伸强度(MTBS)显著提高;而乙醇浸润1min的效果与对照组无统计学差异。SEM观察结果也提示乙醇润湿2min能够显著改善粘接界面混合层的质量、增加树脂突的数量以及长度;乙醇1min可以增加树脂突长度,但对数量无明显影响。结论:乙醇润湿2min对2种粘接剂的粘接性能有显著改善。     

脱矿牙本质与四种粘接剂的粘接强度测试及粘接界面观察

目的比较脱矿牙本质与4种全酸蚀或自酸蚀粘接剂的粘接强度及粘接界面超微结构的差异,以期对临床治疗有所指导。方法选择20颗面龋坏的离体磨牙,在龋显示剂的指示下去除牙本质龋的感染层,保留脱矿牙本质。平齐龋洞洞底平面,去除冠向牙体组织,作为粘接面。选择临床常用的2种全酸蚀粘接剂:材料A(All Bond2)、材料B(Prime&BondNT)和2种自酸蚀粘接剂:材料C(ClearfilSEBond)、材料D(XenoⅢ),分别按说明书要求粘接。用慢速锯将样本牙切为粘接面积约0.9mm×0.9mm的长方体试件。体视显微镜下将试件分为正常牙本质组和脱矿牙本质组,用微拉伸测试仪检测粘接强度。扫描电镜观察各组试件粘接界面的超微形态。结果方差分析提示牙本质类型和粘接剂对微拉伸粘接强度的影响均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。对正常牙本质,不同粘接剂的微拉伸粘接强度差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);对于脱矿牙本质,材料D的微拉伸粘接强度较其他粘接剂明显降低(P<0.05)。扫描电镜下观察脱矿牙本质的混合层多孔稀疏,树脂突短少,无侧枝形成。结论对脱矿牙本质,本项实验中全酸蚀粘接剂的粘接强度优于自酸蚀粘接剂。     

五种牙本质粘结系统微拉伸强度的比较

目的比较不同类型自酸蚀牙本质粘结系统的粘结强度,为临床应用提供参考。方法选择4种自酸蚀粘结系统Clearfil S3Bond,i Bond,Clearfil SE Bond,XenoⅢ,1种全酸蚀粘结系统Single Bond2,用微拉伸法测试这些粘结系统的粘结强度并进行比较。结果全酸蚀粘结剂Single Bond2的微拉伸强度最高,与自酸蚀粘结剂粘结强度有显著差异（P〈0.05）。自酸蚀粘结剂i Bond,S3Bond,XenoⅢ两两之间粘结强度无显著差异（P〉0.05）。SE Bond的粘结强度显著高于i Bond,S3Bond和XenoⅢ（P〈0.05）。结论第五代牙本质粘结剂具有较强的粘结强度,但第七代牙本质粘结剂临床操作更为方便。     

Bond strengths of three different dentin adhesive systems to sclerotic dentin

The two-fold aims of this study were: (1) to evaluate the microtensile bond strengths of different adhesive systems to sclerotic and sound palatal dentin; and (2) to observe the respective resin-dentin interfaces. Thirty extracted human incisor teeth were divided into two groups. Group I comprised sclerotic defects in the palatal zone. Group II comprised sound palatal dentin surfaces as control. Each group (n=15) was divided into three subgroups according to dentin adhesive systems: self-etch (Clearfil SE Bond), total-etch (Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus), and glass ionomer (Reactmer Bond) adhesive systems. The specimens were subjected to tensile forces. Obtained data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and post hoc Duncan's test. Fracture sites and resin-dentin interfaces were observed using a light microscope and SEM. With sound dentin, Clearfil SE Bond showed a significantly higher bond strength than the other adhesives (p < 0.05). With sclerotic dentin, although there were no significant differences in bond strength among the adhesives groups (p > 0.05), the bond strength values of Clearfil SE Bond and Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus were significantly decreased. On resin-dentin interface observation, different images were presented by different bonding systems.     

Bond strength of adhesives to dentin involving total and self-etch adhesives.

OBJECTIVE: Currently, the trend in dentin adhesion seems to be shifting from moist bonding systems to self-etching systems and from several application steps to single steps. However, recent studies have indicated that the performance of single-step adhesives was lower than the 2-step self-etch or total etch systems. In the present study, microtensile bond strength of a total etch, 2-step self-etch and single-step self-etch adhesives was comparatively evaluated. METHOD AND MATERIALS: The superficial occlusal dentin of 12 noncarious extracted human molars was exposed, finished with wet 600-grit silicon carbide paper, and a block of resin composite bonded with adhesives according to the manufacturers' instructions. The teeth were kept in tap water for 24 hours at 37 degrees C and sectioned to produce beams, with adhesive areas of +/- 0.9 mm2 (4 beams per tooth were obtained). The specimens were stressed at a crosshead speed of 1 mm per minute until the bonds ruptured. RESULTS: The mean bond strengths were calculated as MPa and compared by performing analysis of variance and Tukey tests to identify significant differences between the materials (P = 0.05). The mean bond strength of Clearfil SE Bond was significantly higher than that of OptiBond Solo Plus and iBond (P <.05). OptiBond Solo Plus gave significantly higher bond strengths than iBond (P <.05). CONCLUSIONS: The self-etching adhesive system Clearfil SE Bond (2 step) had higher bond strength than the 1-bottle self-etching adhesive iBond (single application) and the 2-step single-bottle system OptiBond Solo Plus (total etch). However, the 1-bottle adhesive system OptiBond Solo Plus (total etch system) had higher bond strength than the 1-bottle self-etching adhesive system iBond.     

Influence of thermal and mechanical load cycling on the microtensile bond strength of self-etching adhesives

PURPOSE: To evaluate the influence of thermal and mechanical load cycling on the microtensile dentin bond strength of two self-etching and one total-etch adhesives. METHODS: The adhesive materials were: a two-step self-etch adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond), a one-step self-etch adhesive (Hybrid Bond), and a total-etch one-step adhesive (Admira Bond). Sixty freshly extracted human third molars were used. In each tooth, a Class I cavity (4 x 4 mm) was prepared in the occlusal surface with the pulpal floor extending about 1 mm into dentin. The teeth were divided into three groups (n=20). Each group was restored with the resin composite Clearfil APX using one of the adhesives. After restoration, 10 teeth in each group were thermocycled between 5 degrees C and 55 degrees C, (dwell time 3 minutes, 5,000 cycles). The same teeth were then mounted in a fatigue loading machine to receive an intermittent load of 125 N at 52 cycles/minute for 4,000 cycles. Subsequently, each tooth was sectioned longitudinally, bucco-lingually and mesio-distally to get rectangular slabs 1-1.2 mm in thickness for the microtensile test. Each slab was then placed in a universal testing machine and tensile load was applied at a cross-head speed of 0.05 mm/minute. RESULTS: Without loading procedures, there was no significant difference in the bond strength of the tested adhesives. In contrast to Admira Bond and Clearfil SE Bond, fatigue loading resulted in a significant reduction of the bond strength for Hybrid Bond when compared to the unloaded restorations.     

Effect of hydrostatic pulpal water pressure on microtensile bond strength of self-etch adhesives to dentin

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of pulpal pressure on the microtensile bond strength of four self-etch adhesives to dentin. A total-etch adhesive was added for comparison. METHODS: 60 freshly extracted human third molars were selected. For each tooth, the root was removed below the cemento-enamel junction. A second parallel section was made to remove the coronal enamel to form a crown segment. The root portion of the resulting crown segment was cemented to a Plexiglas platform using cyanoacrylate cement. The crown segment was then connected with a plastic tube to a water column to produce a pressure of 20 cm H2O at the prepared dentin surface of the crown segment. The adhesive materials were: a total-etch adhesive (Scotchbond 1) and four self-etch adhesives (Clearfil SE Bond, Hybrid Bond, Futurabond NR, and AdheSE Bond). The tested adhesives were applied to the dentin surface in three test procedures: applied to dentin without pulpal pressure, applied to dentin with pulpal pressure for 24 hours, and applied to dentin with pulpal pressure and the pressure was maintained for 6 months during storage. Grandio resin composite was placed in 3-4 layers to a height of 5-6 mm to form a crown segment. For bond strength measurement, the composite-dentin segment was removed from the Plexiglas. This segment was then sectioned to prepare the specimens for microtensile bond measurement. RESULTS: None of the tested adhesives showed bond strength reduction when applied to dentin supplied with water pressure. After 6 months of pulpal pressure, Scotchbond 1, Clearfil SE Bond and AdheSE Bond showed significant reduction in bond strength (P < 0.05). In contrast, Futurabond NR and Hybrid Bond were not significantly affected.     

The effect of direct and indirect water storage on the microtensile dentin bond strength of a total-etch and two self-etching adhesives

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of direct and indirect water storage on the microtensile dentin bond strength of one total-etch and two self-etching adhesives. METHODS: The adhesive materials were: one total-etch adhesive; Admira Bond and two self-etch adhesives; Clearfil SE Bond and Hybrid Bond. Freshly extracted human third molar teeth were used. In each tooth, a Class I cavity (4 x 4 mm) was prepared in the occlusal surface with the pulpal floor extending approximately 1 mm into dentin. The teeth were divided into three groups (n = 12). Each group was restored with the resin composite Clearfil APX using one of the tested adhesives. For each experimental group three test procedures (n = 10) were carried out: Procedure A: the teeth were stored in water for 24 hours, then sectioned longitudinally, buccolingually and mesiodistally to get rectangular slabs of 1.0 - 1.2 mm thickness on which a microtensile test was carried out; Procedure B: the teeth were also sectioned, however the slabs were stored in water at 37 degrees C for 1 year before microtensile testing; Procedure C: the teeth were kept in water at 37 degrees C for 1 year before sectioning and microtensile testing. During microtensile testing the slabs were placed in a universal testing machine and load was applied at a cross-head speed of 0.5 mm/minute. RESULTS: For the 24-hour water storage groups there was no significant difference in bond strength between the three adhesives. After 1 year of indirect water storage, the bond strength decreased but the reduction was not significantly different from those of 24 hours. After 1 year of direct water storage, the mean bond strengths of Admira Bond and Hybrid Bond were significantly reduced compared to their 24-hour results. In contrast the average value of Clearfil SE Bond was not significantly affected.     

Effect of cyclic loading on the microtensile bond strengths of total-etch and self-etch adhesives

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of mechanical loading on the microtensile bond strength (MTBS) of five adhesive systems to dentin. METHODS: Flat dentin surfaces from human molars were divided into five groups and bonded with total-etch self-priming adhesives (Single Bond, Prime&Bond NT and Prime&Bond XP), two-step self-etching primer (Clearfil SE Bond) and an all-in-one adhesive (Etch&Prime 3.0), according to the manufacturers' instructions. Composite build-ups were constructed incrementally with Tetric Ceram. After 24 hours of water storage, half the specimens were load cycled (5000 cycles, 90 N). The teeth were then sectioned into beams of 1.0 mm2 cross-sectional area. Each beam was tested in tension in an Instron machine at 0.5 mm/minute. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Student Newman Keuls multiple comparisons tests (p<0.05). Results: Clearfil SE Bond and Single Bond attained higher MTBS than the other three adhesives. Prime&Bond NT and Prime&Bond XP performed equally, and Etch&Prime 3.0 resulted in the lowest MTBS. After mechanical loading, MTBS decreased in all groups except Prime&Bond XP. Clearfil SE Bond, Single Bond and Prime&Bond XP obtained higher MTBS than Prime&Bond NT. Specimens bonded with Etch&Prime 3.0 resulted in premature failures and MTBS could not be measured. Clinical RELEVANCE: When using Etch&Prime 3.0, bond structures did not withstand mechanical loading, which may have an influence on the long-term success of restorations. If dentin is acid-etched, alcohol-based adhesive systems showed higher bond strength after mechanical loading.     

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.     

Microtensile bond strength of current dentin adhesives measured immediately and 24 hours after application

PURPOSE: To evaluate the immediate microtensile bond strengths achieved with representative adhesive systems from each of the four current bonding approaches. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Resin composite was bonded incrementally to flat, midcoronal dentin from 33 human molars, using the adhesives (Adper Scotchbond MP; Adper Scotchbond 1; Optibond Solo Plus; Clearfil SE Bond; AdheSE; Tyrian SPE + One Step Plus; Optibond Solo Plus self-etching; One-Up Bond F; iBond; Adper Prompt L-Pop; Xeno III) according to the respective manufacturer's instructions. The bonded specimens were immediately sectioned into sticks and underwent microtensile bond testing either immediately or after 24 h. Data were analyzed with two-way ANOVA and LSD tests. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between immediate and 24-h bond strengths (p > 0.05). However, significant differences were observed among adhesives (p = 0.001). The all-in-one adhesive iBond showed statistically lower values when compared to all the other adhesives. Adper Prompt L-Pop, Xeno III, Tyrian SPE + One Step Plus and One-Up Bond F, all self-etching adhesives, were significantly weaker than AdheSE, Optibond Solo Plus, Adper Scotchbond 1, Optibond Solo Plus self-etching, Clearfil SE Bond, and Adper Scotchbond MP, which did not differ statistically from each other. CONCLUSION: Microtensile bond strengths of representative adhesive systems from the four categories of bonding agents were not equivalent, with the lowest values recorded for the one-step self-etching adhesives. There were no differences in the bond strengths when measured immediately and after 24 h.