The elastic moduli across various types of resin/dentin interfaces.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the elastic moduli of an unfilled adhesive resin (Adper Single Bond) and a filled adhesive resin (Adper Single Bond 2) used with and without a low-viscosity resin (LVR) (Filtek Flow) as an elastic cavity wall in class V composite restorations, restored with a hybrid resin composite (Z250). METHODS: Buccal class V cavities were prepared on extracted premolars and lined with (1) the unfilled adhesive resin, (2) the filled adhesive resin, (3) the unfilled adhesive resin and the flowable composite, and (4) the filled adhesive resin and the flowable composite. All cavities were restored with the hybrid resin composite. The specimens were cut bucco-lingually, embedded in epoxy resin and polished. The polished specimens were evaluated for the elastic modulus with nano-indentation test at the layer of dentin, hybrid layer, adhesive resin, low-viscosity resin and resin composite. RESULTS: The elastic moduli were 25,111 MPa for dentin, 12,243 MPa for hybrid layer of Adper Single Bond, 11,765 MPa for hybrid layer of Adper Single Bond 2, 7595 MPa for Adper Single Bond, 8430 MPa for Adper Single Bond 2, 13,543 MPa for Filtek Flow and 24,494 MPa for Filtek Z250 resin composite. The statistical analysis demonstrated that the elastic moduli were significantly different among layers (p<0.05) except between hybrid layers of unfilled and filled adhesives (p=1.0). CONCLUSION: The application of filled adhesive did not increase the elastic modulus of hybrid layer when compared with the unfilled adhesive resin. The modulus of filled adhesive resin was significantly higher than that of unfilled adhesive resin.     

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.     

Effect of activation mode of dual-cured resin cements and low-viscosity composite liners on bond strength to dentin

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of the activation mode of dual-cured resin cements and application of low-viscosity composite liners over self-primed dentin on bond strength (BS) of dentin-bonding agents (DBA). METHODS: Three DBA (Single Bond; Prompt L-Pop and Clearfil SE Bond), their respective resin cements (RelyX ARC and Panavia F) and two low-viscosity composites (Filtek Flow and Protect Liner F) were tested. After removing the buccal enamel surfaces of 25 bovine incisors, each flat dentin surface was sectioned longitudinally and divided into two similar parts. The dentin surfaces were wet-abraded with 600-grit SiC paper and randomly divided into 10 groups. Experimental groups comprised the use of DBA and their respective dual-cured resin cements, with or without light-activation of resin cements. The low-viscosity resin was used only for the self-etching systems, Prompt L-Pop and Clearfil SE Bond. Three resin cement cylinders (0.5mm high and 0.75mm diameter) were built on each bonded dentin surface, using a tygon tubing mold. After water storage for 24h, specimens were subjected to micro-shear testing. Data were statistically analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey test. RESULTS: Light-activation of resin cements resulted in significantly higher BS for all DBA versus groups in which the resin cements were allowed to self-cure. The low-viscosity composite application increased the BS only for Prompt L-Pop. CONCLUSIONS: The bond strength of resin cements to dentin is reduced if light-activation is not employed. The use of a low-viscosity composite liner resulted in improved bond strength only for the single-step self-etching adhesive.     

The effect of bonding system and composite type on adaptation of different C-factor restorations

This study evaluated the effect of two adhesive systems and four resin-based composites on the marginal sealing and cavity wall adaptation of restorations with different C-factors. Cylindrical cavities, 1 mm deep and 3 mm in diameter (C-factor=2.3) or 2 mm in diameter (C-factor=3), were prepared on superficial bovine dentin surfaces. The teeth were restored with Clearfil SE Bond or Single Bond adhesive system followed by hybrid (Photo Clearfil Bright or Z100) or flowable (Filtek Flow or Estelite LV) resin composite. After thermocycling, a dye penetration test was carried out to evaluate the degree of marginal leakage and cavity-wall gap formation. Cavity-wall gap formation increased when the C-factor increased from 2.3 to 3, except for Estelite LV resin composite. In terms of marginal sealing, Clearfil SE Bond showed better performance than Single Bond. When using Clearfil SE Bond, flowable composites improved resin composite adaptation to the cavity wall compared with hybrid composites.     

Microtensile bond strength of a new silorane-based composite resin adhesive

Filtek LS is a new composite resin restorative system with a unique, low-shrinking, silorane-based monomer matrix. The current study was conducted to compare the durability of the bond to dentin of the new silorane-based bonding agent, Filtek Silorane System Adhesive, to the gold standard methacrylate-based bonding agent, Clearfil SE Bond. Extracted human molar teeth were sectioned to expose dentin. Either Filtek Silorane System Adhesive with Filtek LS composite or Clearfil SE Bond with Clearfil Majesty Posterior composite was applied to the dentin according to the manufacturer's instructions. The composites were placed incrementally and sectioned perpendicular to the composite-tooth interface to obtain rectangular beams. The beams were stored for 24 hours, 6 months, or 12 months in distilled water and stressed in tension in a universal testing machine. Data were analyzed with a two-way ANOVA/Tukey test. The 24-hour microtensile bond strengths were significantly greater than the 6- and 12-month bond strengths. Overall, there was no significant difference in the microtensile bond strength to dentin between the Filtek Silorane System Adhesive and the Clearfil SE Bond adhesive bonding agents. After one year of water storage, the new silorane-based composite resin bonding agent performed as well as the methacrylate-based composite resin bonding agent.     

Effect of dentin pre-treatment with a casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate (CPP-ACP) paste on dentin bond strength in tridimensional cavities

Abstract

Objective. This study aimed to evaluate the push-out bond strength of dimethacrylate (Clearfil SE Bond/Filtek Z250; and Adper SE Plus/Filtek Z250) and silorane-based (Filtek P90 adhesive system/Filtek P90 composite resin) restorative systems following selective dentin pre-treatment with a CPP-ACP-containing paste (MI Paste). Materials and methods. Sixty bovine incisors were utilized. The buccal surface was wet-ground to obtain a flat dentin area. Standardized conical cavities were then prepared. Adhesive systems were applied according to manufacturers' directions and the composites were bulk-inserted into the cavity. The push-out bond strength test was performed at a universal testing machine (0.5 mm/min) until failure; failure modes were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc test (p < 0.05). Results. For Clearfil SE Bond/Filtek Z250 and Filtek P90 adhesive system/Filtek P90 composite resin, the dentin pre-treatment did not influence bond strength means. For Adper SE Plus/Filtek Z250, dentin samples treated with MI Paste had statistically higher bond strength means than non-treated specimens. Adhesive failures were more frequent. Conclusion. Dentin pre-treatment with the CPP-ACP containing paste did not negatively affect bond strength for Clearfil SE Bond/Filtek Z250 and Filtek P90 adhesive system/Filtek P90 composite resin restorative systems and improved bond strength for the Adper SE Plus/Filtek Z250 restorative system.     

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.     

Influence of specimen designs on the microtensile bond strength to dentin

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the sensitivity of the microtensile bond strength (muTBS) to changes in the specimen design using three different dentin bonding systems, utilizing both experimental and finite element analysis (FEA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Freshly extracted bovine central incisors were randomly divided into 9 experimental groups. Flat dentin surfaces were exposed and polished with 600-grit SiC papers. The dentin bonding agents (DBA) Adper Prompt L-Pop, Adper Scotchbond 1XT, and Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus were bonded to the dentin surface. A 5- to 6-mm-thick layer of resin composite Filtek Supreme was built up incrementally. For each DBA, after 24 h in water, the bonded specimens were sectioned vertically into slabs of stick-, dumbbell- and hourglass-shaped specimens (n = 30). The muTBS test was performed at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min and the fracture surfaces were examined under optical microscopy and SEM. FEA models of the three designs were developed using the TOMECH program and viewed using FEMSYS visualization software. RESULTS: One-way ANOVA, Tukey's and Kaplan-Meier tests revealed no significant differences between the bond strengths for the three designs for the same dentin bonding agent (p > 0.05). However, there were significant differences between the three adhesive systems when using one specimen design. FEA results showed no major differences between the three designs in the maximum stress within the adhesive layer, although the stress distributions for the hourglass shape followed a different pattern. CONCLUSIONS: The three different specimen designs had no influence on the bond strength to dentin within one adhesive system. FEA predictions are consistent with the results of the experiments.     

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.     

Effect of blood contamination with 1-step self-etching adhesives on microtensile bond strength to dentin

This study evaluated the effect of blood contamination and decontamination methods on the microtensile bond strength of 1-step self-etching adhesive systems to dentin contaminated after adhesive application and light curing. Three commercially available "all-in-one" adhesives (One Up Bond F, Xeno III and Adper Prompt L-Pop) and 1 resin composite (Clearfil AP-X) were used. Third molars that had been stored in distilled water with 0.5% thymol at 4 degrees C were ground with #600 SiC paper under running water to produce a standardized smear layer. The specimens were randomly divided into groups according to the 3 adhesive systems. The adhesive systems were used under 3 conditions: no contamination, which was the control (C); contamination of the light-cured adhesive surface with blood and reapplication of adhesive (Contamination 1) and contamination of the light-cured adhesive surface with blood, then washing, drying and reapplication of the adhesive (Contamination 2). Following light curing of the adhesive, the resin composite was placed in 3 increments up to a 5-mm-thick layer on the bonded surface. All specimens were stored in distilled water at 37 degrees C for 24 hours. The microtensile bond strength was measured using a universal testing machine (EZ test), and data were analyzed by 1-way ANOVA followed by the Duncan test to make comparisons among the groups (p=0.05). After debonding, 5 specimens were selected from each group and examined in a scanning electron microscope to evaluate the modes of fracture. For all adhesives, contamination groups showed lower bond strength than the control (p<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference among the control groups (p>0.05). For Xeno III and Adper Prompt L-Pop, contamination group #2 showed the lowest bond strength among the groups (p<0.05). For One Up Bond F, contamination group #2 showed higher bond strength than contamination group #1 but showed no statistical significance between them (p>0.05).     

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.     

Bond strength of a self-etching adhesive system to caries-affected dentin

This in vitro study evaluated the microtensile bond strengths of sound versus caries-affected dentin using a self-etching adhesive system, Clearfil SE Bond, with or without additional acid pre-conditioning. Extracted human mandibular molars with occlusal caries extending halfway through the dentin were used. In the first group, the teeth were bonded with the self-etching adhesive Clearfil SE Bond according to the manufacturer's instructions. In the second group, prepared dentin surfaces were etched with 37% phosphoric acid prior to applying the same self-etching adhesive. After the bonding procedure, all specimens were built up with composite resin and stored in water for 24 hours. The teeth were serially sectioned vertically into 0.7-mm slabs and trimmed into an hourglass shape for measuring microtensile bond strength. Each specimen was attached to a Bencor device and stressed in tension at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/minute. Statistical analysis was performed using two-way ANOVA and the Tukey HSD test (p<0.05). The microtensile bond strengths of Clearfil SE Bond to sound dentin (32.9) were significantly higher than to caries-affected dentin (15.9). In the second group where acid etching was performed prior to applying Clearfil SE Bond, there were no statistically significant differences between the microtensile bond strengths of sound (19.2) and caries-affected dentin (16.3). While bond strengths to sound dentin were decreased by using additional acid etching prior to applying Clearfil SE Bond, this procedure revealed no statistically significant differences in bond strengths for the caries-affected dentin.     

Dentin bonding on different walls of a class II preparation

PURPOSE: To evaluate the bond strength on different cavity walls of Class II preparations. Different bonding systems and the effect of thermomechanical cycling were investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Human third molars received MOD preparations with dentin margins. Teeth were randomly assigned to 18 groups (n=5) according to the combination of cavity wall (axial, occlusal, and gingival), bonding system (Single Bond Plus, Clearfil SE Bond, and Adper Prompt) and the occurrence of thermomechanical cycling. Restorations were concluded with Filtek Z250 composite. Specimens were sectioned according to the respective cavity wall (4 slabs/restoration), and the adhesive interface was trimmed to an hourglass shape (1 mm2). Slabs were tested under tension, and failure mode was observed. Bond strength data were analyzed with three-way ANOVA/Tukey's test. RESULTS: Single Bond Plus and Clearfil SE Bond performed similarly under most experimental conditions. Single Bond Plus presented similar bond strength on the three cavity walls, regardless of the aging condition. Clearfil SE Bond exhibited significant differences among cavity walls: the occlusal wall showed higher means in both aging conditions. Non-aged gingival walls and aged axial and gingival walls yielded lower means. Non-aged Adper Prompt produced similar bond strengths on the three cavity walls. After thermomechanical cycling, the gingival wall showed lower means. CONCLUSION: The effect of cavity walls was dependent on the bonding system and thermomechanical cycling. Adper Prompt demonstrated bond strengths lower than Single Bond Plus or Clearfil SE Bond under most experimental conditions.     

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.     

The effect of thermal stress on bonding durability of resin composite adaptation to the cavity wall

This study evaluated the effect of thermal stress on marginal sealing and cavity wall adaptation using two adhesive systems. Cylindrical cavities were prepared in superficial dentin of bovine incisors and bonded with Clearfil SE Bond or Single Bond adhesive. Cavities were bulk-filled with Photo Clearfil Bright or Filtek Flow resin composite and light-cured for 40 seconds. Specimens were thermocycled for 0, 500, or 5000 times. A dye penetration test was carried out to determine adaptation to the cavity wall. Dye penetration length was calculated as a percentage of the total cavity wall length. Clearfil SE Bond showed excellent marginal sealing and cavity wall adaptation regardless of composite type up to 500 cycles of thermal stress. As for the Single Bond groups, significantly greater marginal leakage occurred after 500 cycles. At 5000 cycles of thermal stress, both adhesive systems showed significantly decreased marginal integrity compared with the 0 cycle group.     

Does bonding to dentin reduce microleakage of composite restorations?

This study evaluated the effect of adhesive application only to enamel on the marginal microleakage of composite resin restorations performed with different adhesive systems. Standardized cylinder-shaped cavities were prepared on the buccal surface of eighty bovine incisors. Two etch-and-rinse (Adper Scotchbond Multi-purpose [3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN USA] and Adper Single Bond 2 [3M ESPE]) and two self-etching (Clearfil SE Bond [Kuraray, Osaka, Japan] and Adper Prompt [3M ESPE]) adhesive systems were evaluated. The adhesives were applied only to enamel or to both dentin and enamel. After adhesive light-activation, the cavities were restored with composite resin. The samples were coated with two layers of nail polish, except an area of 1-mm wide around of the restoration, and immersed in a methylene blue solution. Afterwards, the specimens were ground in order to obtain powder which was immersed in absolute alcohol. The solutions were centrifuged and the supernatant was analyzed using an absorbance spectrophotometer. Linear regression was used to estimate the dye concentration. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey's tests (alpha = 0.05). The etch-and-rinse adhesives showed lower microleakage means compared to those of the self-etching adhesives. Adper Prompt presented higher microleakage means. There was no difference between the modes of application of the adhesive on the cavity for all adhesive systems, except for Clearfil SE Bond. This showed lower microleakage when applied to the whole cavity. Bonding to dentin may not reduce microleakage of composite restorations.     

Resin composites: strength of the bond to dentin versus mechanical properties

This study (1) investigated whether the combination of an adhesive system from one manufacturer with a resin composite from the same manufacturer provides superior bonding of the resin composite to dentin compared with the combination of an adhesive system from one manufacturer with a resin composite from another manufacturer, and (2) tested for a possible influence on bond strength of mechanical properties of the resin composite. After application of an adhesive system, a resin composite was bonded to flattened human dentin and tested in shear after 1 week. Five adhesive systems (AdheSE, Adper Prompt L-Pop, Clearfil SE Bond, Optibond Solo Plus, and Xeno III) were tested with each of five resin composites (Tetric Ceram, Filtek Supreme, Clearfil AP-X, Premise, and EsthetX). The mechanical properties flexural strength and flexural modulus were determined by three-point loading. Bond strengths were influenced by the brand of adhesive system (P < 0.0001) and by the brand of resin composite (P < 0.0001), but the combination of an adhesive system from one manufacturer with a resin composite from the same manufacturer did not provide bond strengths that were superior to those obtained when an adhesive system from one manufacturer was combined with a resin composite from another manufacturer. Independent of the brand of resin composite, the adhesive system Clearfil SE Bond mediated the highest bond strength to dentin. For each adhesive system, the resin composite Clearfil AP-X resulted in the highest bond strength to dentin. Significant positive correlations were found between bond strength and flexural strength (P < 0.0026, r = 0.21) and between bond strength and flexural modulus (P < 0.0017, r = 0.22).     

One-year clinical performance of self-etch adhesives in posterior restorations

PURPOSE: To evaluate the 1-year clinical performance of three self-etching adhesives (Adper Prompt L-Pop, Clearfil S3 Bond, iBond) in posterior composite restorations using one etch&rinse adhesive (One-Step Plus) as control. METHODS: Upon approval by the Institutional Review Board, 121 restorations were inserted in 38 subjects. The adhesives were applied as per manufacturers' instructions. Preparations were restored with a nanofilled resin composite (Filtek Supreme) and evaluated at baseline, 6 months, and 1 year. Statistical analyses included the Chi-square distribution with the McNemar non-parametric test (P < 0.05). RESULTS: At 1 year, 111 restorations in 35 subjects were evaluated using the USPHS modified criteria. No significant changes were observed for the etch&rinse adhesive One-Step Plus. At 1 year the number of Alfa ratings decreased significantly for Clearfil S3 Bond and for iBond in the categories color match, marginal staining, and marginal adaptation. For Adper Prompt L-Pop, marginal adaptation at 1 year was significantly worse than at baseline. Postoperative sensitivity to air improved significantly for Adper Prompt L-Pop, Clearfil S3 Bond, and iBond. When the evaluation criteria were paired at 1 year, iBond resulted in a significantly lower number of Alfa ratings than any of the other adhesives for color match, marginal staining, and marginal adaptation. One-Step Plus resulted in a greater number of Alfa ratings for marginal adaptation than either Adper Prompt L-Pop or Clearfil S3 Bond. Marginal adaptation was significantly better for Clearfil S3 Bond than for Adper Prompt L-Pop. The post-operative sensitivity measured at 1 year for Adper Prompt L-Pop was statistically better than that for One-Step Plus.     

Bond strength of self-etch adhesives to dentin prepared with three different diamond burs.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the micro-tensile bond strength (mu TBS) of a control etch-and-rinse and three self-etch (strong, mild, ultra-mild) adhesive systems to dentin prepared with three different grit size of diamond burs. METHODS: Dentin surfaces were created from mid-coronal sound dentin in extracted, human third molars. The teeth were ground with high-speed medium grit (100 microm), fine grit (30 microm), or extra-fine grit (15 microm) diamond bur. Resin composite (Z100) was bonded to the surfaces using Optibond FL, Adper Prompt L-Pop, Clearfil SE Bond, or Clearfil S3 Bond. Rectangular micro-specimens were prepared using the slow-speed diamond saw and tested in tensile to determine the mu TBS. Failure analysis was performed using a stereo-microscope and Fe-SEM. Data were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance and Tukey's HSD test (p<0.05). RESULTS: The etch-and-rinse adhesive yielded high micro-tensile values (58-69 MPa), irrespective of the diamond burs used. The bond strength values were comparable for Adper Prompt L-Pop and Clearfil SE Bond irrespective of the burs used. The mu TBS values were significantly higher as the particle size of diamond burs is smaller for Clearfil S3 Bond. Most failures were recorded as interfacial failure when the fine and extra-fine diamond burs were used. SIGNIFICANCE: Overall, different grit-sized diamond burs did not affect the mechanical properties of the interface, except for the ultra-mild one step self-etch adhesive. This adhesive performed significantly better when a smaller grit size was used to prepare dentin surface.     

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。