Current aspects on bonding effectiveness and stability in adhesive dentistry

Improved dental adhesive technology has extensively influenced modern concepts in restorative dentistry. In light of minimal-invasive dentistry, this new approach promotes a more conservative cavity design, which basically relies on the effectiveness of current enamel-dentine adhesives. Nowadays, the interaction of adhesives with the dental substrate is based on two different strategies, commonly described as an etch-and-rinse and a self-etch approach. In an attempt to simplify the bonding technique, manufacturers have decreased the number of steps necessary for the accomplishment of the bonding procedure. As a consequence, two-step etch-and-rinse and one-step (self-etch) adhesives were introduced and gained rapid popularity in the dental market due to their claimed user-friendliness and lower technique sensitivity. However, many concerns have been raised on the bonding effectiveness of these simplified adhesives, especially in terms of durability, although this tends to be very material dependent. In order to blend all the adhesive components into one single solution, one-step adhesives were made more acidic and hydrophilic. Unfortunately, these properties induce a wide variety of seemingly unrelated problems that may jeopardize the effectiveness and stability of adhesion to the dental substrate. Being more susceptible to water sorption and thus nanoleakage, these adhesives are more prone to bond degradation and tend to fail prematurely as compared to their multi-step counterparts. Incidentally, another factor that may interfere with the bonding effectiveness of adhesives is the technique used for caries removal and cavity preparation. Several tools are on the market today to effectively remove carious tissue, thereby respecting the current trend of minimum intervention. Despite their promising performance, such techniques modify the tooth substrate in different aspects, possibly affecting bonding effectiveness. Altogether, we may conclude that not only the adhesive formulation, but also substrate nature must be taken into account to achieve a stable bonding interface, rendering the restorative treatment more predictable in terms of clinical performance. In this review, we analyse the current theoretical and clinical aspects of adhesion to enamel and dentine, and discuss the diverse possibilities to overcome problems which nowadays still challenge clinicians in their achievement of a more stable and effective bond to tooth enamel and dentine.     

Sistemi adesivi self-etch: revisione della letteratura

Objectives

This literature review summarizes the main aspects involved in the process of adhesion to enamel and dentin and focuses the reader's attention on the evolution of self-etch systems, highlighting their chemical and bond properties and applications in the clinical practice.

Materials and methods

An online search of keywords on the PubMed database was performed to search for scientific articles (reviews, original articles) published in recent years regarding self-etch adhesives.

Results

Multiple laboratory and clinical studies described adhesion mechanisms of self-etch adhesives. The majority of these publications found a higher bond quality of self-etch adhesive to dentin, while the bond to enamel remained questionable, especially for single step adhesives.

Conclusions

The self-etch technique is considered a valid dental adhesion approach from a restorative standpoint.     

Using the Self-etch Adhesives in Anterior Restoration

With the arrival of self-etch adhesives systems, there has been a rise in interest among clinicians, making it imperative for health professionals to have knowledge of the properties, characteristics, the association as well as the dental structures of these materials, in order to select them and use them correctly. The self-etch adhesive systems show good values of bond strength, microleakage and performance, and have therefore become an option in direct adhesive restorations. In the regard, this case study aims to describe the technique involving the use of selfetch adhesives system for direct restoration of anterior teeth. Keywords: Esthetics, Self-etch adhesives, Restoration. How to cite this article: Tonetto MR, Kabbach W, de Campos EA, de Oliveira Junior OB, de Toledo Porto Neto S, Saad JRC, de Andrade MF. Using the Self-etch Adhesives in Anterior Restoration. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012;13(3):421-424. Source of support: Nil Conflict of interest: None declared.     

State of the art of self-etch adhesives

This paper reflects on the state of the art of self-etch adhesives anno 2010. After presenting the general characteristics of self-etch adhesives, the major shortcomings of the most simple-to-use one-step (self-etch) adhesives are addressed. Special attention is devoted to the AD-concept and the benefit of chemical interfacial interaction with regard to bond durability. Finally, issues like the potential interference of surface smear and the more challenging bond to enamel for ‘mild’ self-etch adhesives are discussed.     

Cuspal deflection and cervical microleakage scores to determine the adhesive potential of universal bonding systems

Objectives

To assess the adhesive performance of three universal bonding systems (self-etch and total-etch protocols) with cuspal deflection and cervical microleakage score.

Methods

Fifty-six standardised sound maxillary premolar teeth with uniform mesio-occlusal-distal (MOD) cavities were randomly allocated to six groups. Restoration with resin-based composite (RBC) was performed in conjunction with a universal bonding system facilitated by a quartz-tungsten-halogen light-curing-unit. The dependent variable was the universal bonding protocol (self-etch or total-etch). Buccal and palatal cuspal deflections were recorded at 0, 30, 60 and 180 s post-irradiation using a twin channel deflection measuring gauge. Following restoration, the teeth subjected to 500 thermocycles, immersed in a 0.2% basic fuchsin dye for 24 h, sectioned and examined for cervical microleakage.

Results

Comparing between bonding protocol (self-etch or total-etch), a decrease in total cuspal deflection and a concomitant increase in cervical microleakage were evident when employing the total-etch compared with the self-etch protocol for two of the three universal dental adhesives.

Conclusions

The ‘Adhesion-Decalcification concept’ suggests a trend towards ‘mild self-etch’ adhesives. Differences in adhesive performance (cuspal deflection and cervical microleakage) between the teeth restored using the self-etch or total-etch protocols is suggested to be a result of the pH of the self-etch solutions. ‘Mild self-etch’ (pH ∼ 2.0) adhesives out-performed ultra-mild (pH > 2.5) or strong (pH < 1.5) self-etch solutions.

Clinical significance

Poorly performing adhesives could be identified using the cuspal deflection and cervical microleakage protocol reported which could save the complications encountered clinically with Class II RBC restorations.     

Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives: a systematic review of current clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this paper was to review current literature on the clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives when used to restore cervical non-carious class-V lesions. Restoration retention in function of time was recorded in order to find out if adhesives with a simplified application procedure are as clinically effective as conventional three-step adhesives. DATA SOURCES: Literature published from January 1998 up to May 2004 was reviewed for university-centred clinical trials that tested the clinical effectiveness of adhesives in non-carious class-V lesions. Restoration-retention rates per adhesive reported in peer-reviewed papers as well as IADR-AADR abstracts and ConsEuro abstracts were included and depicted as a function of time in graphs for each of the five adhesive classes (three- and two-step etch-and-rinse adhesives, two- and one-step self-etch adhesives, and glass-ionomers). The guidelines for dentin and enamel adhesive materials advanced by the American Dental Association were used as a reference. Per class, the annual failure rate (%) was calculated. Kruskal-Wallis analysis and Dwass-Steel-Chritchlow-Fligner pairwise comparisons were used to determine statistical differences between the annual failure percentages of the five adhesive categories. RESULTS: Comparison of retention of class-V adhesive restorations as a measure to determine clinical bonding effectiveness of adhesives revealed that glass-ionomers most effectively and durably bond to tooth tissue. Three-step etch-and-rinse adhesives and two-step self-etch adhesives showed a clinically reliable and predictably good clinical performance. The clinical effectiveness of two-step etch-and-rinse adhesives was less favourable, while an inefficient clinical performance was noted for the one-step self-etch adhesives. SIGNIFICANCE: Although there is a tendency towards adhesives with simplified application procedures, simplification so far appears to induce loss of effectiveness. Clinical performance can be correlated with, and predicted by, appropriate types of laboratory study.     

One-day bonding effectiveness of new self-etch adhesives to bur-cut enamel and dentin

Self-etch adhesives try to solve difficulties commonly associated with the clinical application of etch-and-rinse adhesives. Their application procedure is considered less time-consuming and, more importantly, less technique-sensitive. The main objective of this study was to determine the bonding effectiveness to and the interaction with enamel/dentin of three contemporary one- and two-step self-etch adhesives by microtensile bond strength testing (microTBS), Fe-SEM and TEM when compared to a control two-step self-etch and a three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive. The one-step self-etch adhesive, Adper Prompt (3M ESPE), scored the lowest microTBS of all experimental and control adhesives tested. Conversely, the two-step self-etch adhesives Clearfil SE (Kuraray) and OptiBond Solo Plus Self-Etch (Kerr) approached the values obtained by the three-step etch-and-rinse control (OptiBond FL, Kerr) when bonded to enamel and dentin. Ultramorphological characterization showed that interfacial morphology and the pH of the self-etch primer/adhesive are strongly associated. The interaction with dentin varied from the formation of a submicron, hydroxyapatite-containing hybrid layer for the "mild" self-etch adhesive Clearfil SE to a 3-5 microm thick, hydroxyapatite-depleted hybrid layer for the "strong" self-etch adhesive Adper Prompt. The two-step self-etch adhesives AdheSE and OptiBond Solo Plus Self-Etch presented with a hybrid layer with a hydroxyapatite-depleted top part and a hydroxyapatite-containing base part and were therefore classified into a new group of self-etch adhesives, namely "intermediary strong" self-etch adhesives.     

Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges

Bonding to tooth tissue can be achieved through an "etch&rinse," "self-etch" or "glass-ionomer" approach. In this paper, the basic bonding mechanism to enamel and dentin of these three approaches is demonstrated by means of ultramorphological and chemical characterization of tooth-biomaterial interfacial interactions. Furthermore, bond-strength testing and measurement of marginal-sealing effectiveness (the two most commonly employed methodologies to determine "bonding effectiveness" in the laboratory) are evaluated upon their value and relevance in predicting clinical performance. A new dynamic methodology to test biomaterial-tooth bonds in a fatigue mode is introduced with a recently developed micro-rotary fatigue-testing device. Eventually, today's adhesives will be critically weighted upon their performance in diverse laboratory studies and clinical trials. Special attention has been given to the benefits/drawbacks of an etch&rinse versus a self-etch approach and the long-term performance of these adhesives. Correlating data gathered in the laboratory with clinical results clearly showed that laboratory research CAN predict clinical effectiveness. Although there is a tendency to simplify bonding procedures, the data presented confirm that conventional three-step etch&rinse adhesives still perform most favorably and are most reliable in the long-term. Nevertheless, a self-etch approach may have the best future perspective. Clinically, when adhesives no longer require an "etch&rinse" step, the application time, and probably more importantly, the technique-sensitivity are substantially reduced. Especially "mild," two-step self-etch adhesives that bond through a combined micromechanical and chemical interaction with tooth tissue closely approach conventional three-step systems in bonding performance.     

Extension of a one-step self-etch adhesive into a multi-step adhesive.

One-step self-etch adhesives are undoubtedly the most user-friendly adhesives, but have been associated with lower bonding effectiveness as compared to two-step and three-step adhesives. Conversion of a one-step self-etch system into a two-step self-etch adhesive by adding a bonding step, or into a three-step etch&rinse adhesive by adding a beforehand etching step and a bonding step might be tempting in order to improve bond strength. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate whether adding application steps influences the bond strength of a one-step self-etch adhesive. METHODS: In this study, the bonding effectiveness of two experimental one-step self-etch adhesives and three different commercial adhesives to enamel and dentin was determined using a micro-tensile bond-strength protocol. This procedure was repeated for the experimental adhesives transformed into two-step self-etch and three-step etch&rinse adhesives. In addition, their interaction with tooth tissue was investigated using TEM and Feg-SEM. RESULTS: Transforming a one-step into a two-step self-etch adhesive did improve the bond strength to enamel and dentin, though not significantly. By adding a preceding etching step, the bond strength to enamel was significantly improved, but that to dentin was decreased considerably. The latter must be attributed to hampered resin infiltration of the one-step self-etch adhesive within the relatively deeply exposed collagen fibril network. SIGNIFICANCE: Additional application of a hydrophobic bonding agent slightly improved bonding effectiveness. Adding a preceding etching step is beneficial for enamel but should be avoided for dentin as this will decrease bond strengths, and may even jeopardize the bonding durability.     

Adhesive systems: important aspects related to their composition and clinical use

This literature review article addresses the types and the main components of different etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesive systems available in the market, and relates them to their function, possible chemical interactions and influence of handling characteristics. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images are presented to characterize the interface between adhesives and dentin. Adhesive systems have been recently classified according to their adhesion approaches in etch-and-rinse, self-etch and glass ionomer. The etch-andrinse systems require a specific acid-etch procedure and may be performed in two or three steps. Self-etch systems employ acidic monomers that demineralize and impregnate dental substrates almost at the same time. These systems are separated in one or two steps. Some advantages and deficiencies were noted for etch-and-rinse and self-etch approaches, mainly for the simplified ones due to some chemical associations and interactions. The SeM micrographs illustrate different relationships between adhesive systems and dental structures, particularly dentin. The knowledge of composition, characteristics and mechanisms of adhesion of each adhesive system is of fundamental importance to permit the adoption of ideal bonding strategies under clinical conditions.     

Self-etch adhesives for the bonding of orthodontic brackets: faster, stronger, safer?

Objectives

This study aimed to evaluate the performance of accelerating procedures for bonding of orthodontic brackets in vitro by comparing different adhesives (etch-and-rinse, self-etch) and polymerization procedures (curing devices, time). The performance was characterized by three parameters: (1) the bond strength achieved, (2) the incidence of enamel damage, and (3) the extent of residual composite on the tooth.

Materials and methods

Bracket bonding was performed on 500 extracted human teeth after application of either an etch-and-rinse adhesive or a one-step self-etch adhesive. Two different two-component self-etch adhesives (Clearfil SE and Transbond Plus) and two single-component self-etch adhesives (Ideal and iBond) were investigated after using different polymerization procedures (light-emitting diode for 10 or 20 s or plasma arc curing device for 3 or 6 s). The bond strength, incidence of enamel damage, and extent of residual composite on the tooth were measured.

Results

Single-component self-etch adhesives gave the lowest bond strengths. No significant difference in bond strength could be detected between the two-component self-etch adhesives and the etch-and-rinse method. There was a 70.3 % risk for enamel damage at bond strengths above 12 MPa, but only 5 % risk below 12 MPa and no risk below 8.2 MPa. The risk of enamel damage increased by an odds ratio increment of 1.3 for each additional MPa above 8.2 MPa.

Conclusion

Single-component self-etch adhesives showed the lowest bond strengths, caused limited enamel damage, and generally left less residual composite on the tooth.

Clinical relevance

The nature of the adhesive greatly influences the resultant bond strength, the risk of enamel damage, and the extent of residual composite on the teeth.     

Fatigue of enamel bonds with self-etch adhesives

ObjectiveFatigue testing of adhesive bonds to tooth structures in conjunction with bond strength testing can provide more useful information for examining the effectiveness of dental adhesives. The purpose of this study was to determine the shear bond strength (SBS) and shear fatigue limit (SFL) of composite to enamel bonds using modern adhesive systems.MethodsTwelve specimens each were used to determine 24-h resin composite (Z100-3M ESPE) to enamel shear bond strengths with an etch-and-rinse system (ERA), Adper Single Bond Plus (SB), and four self-etch adhesives (SEA)—Adper Prompt-L-Pop (PLP), Clearfil SE (CSE), Clearfil S³ (CS3) and Xeno IV (X4). A staircase method of fatigue testing was used in a four-station fatigue cycler to determine the SFL of composite to enamel bonds with the adhesives (16–20 specimens for each adhesive) at 0.25 Hz for 40,000 cycles. ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test were used for the SBS data and a modified t-test with Bonferroni correction was used for comparisons of the SFL.ResultsThe SBS and SFL of the etch-and-rinse system were significantly greater (p < 0.05) than those of the four self-etch adhesives. The SBS and SFL of CSE were also significantly greater than for the other three self-etch systems. The ratio of SFL to SBS was highest with the etch-and-rinse system and the ratio became increasing smaller in the same order that the values for SBS decreased with the self-etch systems.SignificanceThe lower fatigue limits for composite to enamel bonds obtained with the self-etch adhesive systems may indicate that greater enamel margin breakdown will occur with restorations where these systems are used for bonding.     

Correlation between dental arch location and clinical success rate of total etch and self-etch adhesives in ClassV composite restorations

Flexure at the tooth cervix might render the restored Class V lesions to degradation. In this clinical trial a total of 76 carious cervical lesions in both arch were restored using Prime & Bond NT and Clearfil SE Bond adhesives, along with Clearfil APX composite resin. Retention of restoration, marginal discoloration and postoperative sensitivity were evaluated during a one year period. The overall clinical success rate was 89.5%, while no significant difference (p > 0.05) was found regarding postoperative sensitivity or marginal discoloration between two adhesives. Retention loss was associated only with self-etch adhesives. No association was found between clinical success and dental arch location.     

Bonding effectiveness of two contemporary self-etch adhesives to enamel and dentin

Objectives

Among contemporary adhesives, self-etch adhesives have been adopted by general practitioners for routine adhesive restorative purposes, mainly because of their ease of use. However, many versions that differ for their clinical application procedure, pH, number of components, etc., are currently available on the market. The purpose of this study was to determine the bonding effectiveness of two new self-etch adhesives (Adper Easy Bond and Adper ScotchBond SE, 3M ESPE) to enamel and dentin using a micro-tensile bond strength (μTBS) protocol and to characterise the interfacial ultra-structure at enamel and dentin using transmission electron microscopy (TEM).

Methods

The adhesives were applied onto coronal human enamel and dentin surfaces and built up with the micro-hybrid resin composite Z100 (3M ESPE). The ‘gold-standard’ two-step self-etch adhesive Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray) served as control. Specimens were sectioned to sticks and trimmed at the interface to a cylindrical hour-glass shape (‘trimmed’ micro-specimens). Non-demineralized and demineralized TEM sections through the adhesive-dentin/enamel interface were prepared by ultra-microtomy.

Results

The μTBS of the two self-etch adhesives to enamel was statistically significantly lower than that of the control. To dentin, the μTBS of Adper Easy Bond was significantly lower than that of Adper ScotchBond SE and the control. TEM showed a tight interface to enamel for all three self-etch adhesives. A relatively thick, completely demineralized and acid-resistant hybrid layer was formed at dentin by Adper ScotchBond SE, whereas the interaction of Adper Easy Bond was much shallower, and comparable to that of so-called ‘ultra-mild’ self-etch adhesives. Some degree of spot- and cluster-like nano-leakage was observed for both adhesives, but did not differ in extent and form from that observed for the control.

Conclusions

Although the new two self-etch adhesives revealed a tight interaction at both enamel and dentin, their bond strength to both tooth tissues was generally lower than that of the control adhesive. Nevertheless, their bonding effectiveness appears in line with other simplified self-etch adhesives.     

自酸蚀粘结剂治疗牙本质过敏症的临床疗效观察

目的：对比观察3M Adper Prompt自酸蚀粘结剂和75%氟化钠甘油糊剂治疗牙本质过敏症的临床疗效.方法：颈部牙本质过敏症患者110例,共122颗牙,随机分为治疗组55例62颗牙,用3M Adper Prompt自酸蚀粘结剂脱敏治疗,对照组55例60颗牙,用75%氟化钠甘油糊剂脱敏治疗,在统一标准下进行即刻和1个月、3个月后的疗效对照分析.结果：两组之间即刻疗效无显著性差异,而1个月、3个月后的疗效具有显著性差异,3M Adper Prompt自酸蚀粘结剂脱敏效果明显优于氟化钠甘油糊剂的脱敏效果.结论：3M Adper Prompt自酸蚀粘结剂对牙本质过敏症具有较好的临床治疗效果.     

Shear bond strength of self-etch adhesives to enamel with additional phosphoric acid etching

This study evaluated the shear bond strength of self-etch adhesives to enamel and the effect of additional phosphoric acid etching. Seventy sound human molars were randomly divided into three test groups and one control group. The enamel surfaces of the control group (n=10) were treated with Syntac Classic (SC). Each test group was subdivided into two groups (each n=10). In half of each test group, ground enamel surfaces were coated with the self-etch adhesives AdheSe (ADH), Xeno III (XE) or Futurabond NR (FNR). In the remaining half of each test group, an additional phosphoric acid etching of the enamel surface was performed prior to applying the adhesives. The shear bond strength was measured with a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/minute after storing the samples in distilled water at 37 degrees C for 24 hours. Fracture modes were determined by SEM examination. For statistical analysis, one-way ANOVA and the two-sided Dunnett Test were used (p>0.05). Additional phosphoric etching significantly increased the shear bond strength of all the examined self-etch adhesives (p<0.001). The highest shear bond strength was found for FNR after phosphoric acid etching. Without phosphoric acid etching, only FNR showed no significant differences compared to the control (SC). SEM evaluations showed mostly adhesive fractures. For all the self-etch adhesives, a slight increase in mixed fractures occurred after conditioning with phosphoric acid. An additional phosphoric acid etching of enamel should be considered when using self-etch adhesives. More clinical studies are needed to evaluate the long-term success of the examined adhesives.     

Conditioning effect on dentin, resin tags and hybrid layer of different acidity self-etch adhesives applied to thick and thin smear layer

OBJECTIVES: to assess the conditioning effect (CE) of self-etch adhesives of different acidity applied to thick and thin smear layer (SL), the corresponding resin tags (RT) and hybrid layer (HL). METHODS: Twenty-seven molars had their occlusal dentin exposed and were sectioned into two halves. Each of them was ground with a 60 or 600-grit SiC paper, respectively for thick and thin SL production. Three self-etch adhesives: a mild (Clearfil SE Bond), an intermediary (Optibond Solo SE and Solo Plus) and a strong (Tyrian Self Priming Etchant+One Step Plus) and an etch-&-rinse system (Scotchbond Multi Purpose Plus) were used. For CE evaluation, the self-etch primers were applied and rinsed off with acetone and alcohol prior to SEM preparation. For RT and HL specimens self-etch adhesives were applied and restored with Z-250. For RT specimens, dentin was removed with HCl (6N) and NaClO (1%) baths. The HL specimens were fixed, dehydrated, dried with HMDS, embedded, polished and slightly demineralized (6N HCl) and deproteinized (1% NaClO). After gold sputtering they were observed by SEM. RESULTS: The thick smear layer was clearly not totally removed by the mild self-etch primer. RT varied in density and shape among the self-etch adhesives. Thicker HL was observed for the strong self-etch and etch-&-rinse adhesives. CONCLUSIONS: The etch-&-rinse adhesive presented the thickest HL and was the only adhesive to produce RT in high density and uniform distribution along the whole dentin surface, independently of the SL thickness.     

Technique-sensitivity of contemporary adhesives

Besides micro-mechanical interlocking through hybrid-layer formation, self-etch adhesives may benefit from additional chemical interaction between the functional monomer and residual hydroxyapatite. One-step adhesives are commonly associated with lower bonding effectiveness, which must be attributed in part to the dissolution of hydrophilic and hydrophobic monomers in a relatively highly concentrated solvent. In this 'difficult' mixture, also water is essential as ionization medium to enable self-etching activity. Due to the high hydrophilicity, one-step self-etch adhesives have been reported to behave as semi-permeable membranes, allowing fluids to pass through and seriously jeopardizing bond durability. Recent research has also revealed that HEMA-free one-step adhesives are prone to phase-separation, which may also account for their lower bonding effectiveness. Employing an appropriate air-drying technique may, however, improve the bonding effectiveness of such phase-separating adhesives by getting rid of substantially more interfacial water than HEMA-containing adhesives, of which water might be more difficult to remove from.     

Self-etch vs etch-and-rinse adhesives: effect of thermo-mechanical fatigue loading on marginal quality of bonded resin composite restorations.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the marginal integrity of dentine adhesives bonded to enamel and dentine, before and after thermo-mechanical loading (TML). METHODS: MO cavities with proximal boxes beneath the CEJ were prepared in extracted human third molars. Direct resin composite restorations (Tetric Ceram) were bonded with 3-step etch-and-rinse (Syntac Classic, Solobond Plus, OptiBond FL), 2-step etch-and-rinse (Admira Bond, Single Bond), 2-step self-etch (AdheSE, Clearfil SE Bond), and 1-step self-etch (all-in-one) adhesives (Adper Prompt, Xeno III, iBond). Marginal gaps were analyzed using SEM of epoxy resin replicas. Bonded interfaces before TML were examined with TEM to identify pre-existing attributes for subsequent marginal disintegration. RESULTS: In enamel, high percentages of gap-free margins were initially identified for all adhesives. After TML, etch-and-rinse adhesives exhibited significantly higher percentages of gap-free margins (approximately 90%) compared with two-step self-etch (approximately 75%) and all-in-one (approximately 55%) adhesives (p<0.05). iBond did not completely etch through the enamel smear layer. In dentine, 89-100% gap-free margins were initially observed. After TML, there were no statistical differences among etch-and-rinse (62-70%) and two-step self-etch (62-63%) adhesives (p>0.05). The all-in-one adhesives exhibited significantly less gap-free margins (<40%) in dentine (p<0.05), with iBond showing the worst marginal integrity (15%). The presence of pre-existing water channels within the adhesives probably expedited water sorption when restorations were under functional stresses. CONCLUSION: Enamel bonding was more effective with phosphoric acid-etching. Etch-and-rinse and 2-step self-etch adhesives showed promising marginal adaptation to dentine and may have a better clinical prognosis than the all-in-one bonding approach.     

Adhesion to eroded enamel and dentin: systematic review and meta-analysis

ObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the bond strength between eroded and sound permanent enamel and dentin and to assess whether bonding performance (immediate and after aging) differs between etch&rinse and self-etch adhesives and can be improved by surface pretreatment prior to bonding.MethodsElectronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, LILACS, BBO) were searched by two reviewers. Random-effect meta-analyses were performed to compare bond strength to sound and eroded dental hard tissues without and with surface pretreatment prior to bonding, respectively. The effect of adhesive mode (etch&rinse vs. self-etch) and aging (immediate vs. aged) was compared using subgroup analyses. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran’s Q and I²-statistic. Funnel plots and Egger’s regression intercept tests were used to evaluate publication bias. Quality and risk of bias of included studies were also assessed.ResultsFourty-seven studies (45 in vitro, 2 in situ) were included in the systematic review and meta-analyses. Erosion impairs bond strength to dentin (p < 0.001; mean difference: −10.2 MPa [95%CI: −11.9 to −8.6 MPa]), but not to enamel (p = 0.260). Surface pretreatment measures removing or stabilizing the collagenous matrix can improve dentin bond strength (maximum mean difference: +12.4 MPa). Etch&rinse and self-etch adhesives did not perform significantly different on eroded enamel (p = 0.208) and dentin (p = 0.353). The majority of studies (32 of 47) presented a medium risk of bias.SignificanceData from in vitro and in situ studies showed that erosion impairs dentin bonding of etch&rinse and self-etch adhesives and makes surface pretreatment prior to bonding of composite restorations necessary.