Can the durability of one-step self-etch adhesives be improved by double application or by an extra layer of hydrophobic resin?

Department of Restorative Dentistry, Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa, Avenida General Carlos Cavalcanti, 4748, Bloco M, Sala 64A, Uvaranas, Ponta Grossa, PR 84030-900, Brazil.
Journal of Dentistry (Impact Factor: 2.84). 06/2008; 36(5):309-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2008.01.018
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This study evaluated the immediate and 6-month resin-dentin micro-bond strength (microTBS) of one-step self-etch systems (Adper Prompt L-Pop [AD] 3M ESPE; Xeno III [XE] Dentsply De Trey; iBond [iB] Heraeus Kulzer) under different application modes.
Dentin oclusal surfaces were exposed by grinding with 600-grit SiC paper. The adhesives were applied according to the manufacturer's directions [MD], or with double application of the adhesive layer [DA] or following the manufacturer's directions plus a hydrophobic resin layer coating [HL]. After applying the adhesive resins, composite crowns were built up incrementally. After 24-h water storage, the specimens were serially sectioned in "x" and "y" directions to obtain bonded sticks of about 0.8mm2 to be tested immediately [IM] or after 6 months of water storage [6M] at a crosshead speed of 0.5mm/min. The data from each adhesive was analyzed by a two-way repeated measures ANOVA (mode of application vs. storage time) and Tukey's test (alpha=0.05).
The adhesives performed differently according to the application mode. The DA and HL either improved the immediate performance of the adhesive or did not differ from the MD. The resin-dentin bond strength values observed after 6 months were higher when a hydrophobic resin coat was used than compared to those values observed under the manufacturer's directions.
The double application of one-step self-etch system can be safety performed however the application of an additional hydrophobic resin layer can improve the immediate resin-dentin bonds and reduce the degradation of resin bonds over time.


Available from: Jose Bauer, May 30, 2015
1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength to dentin (µTBS) of two total-etching adhesives applied with delays of 1–30 s for curing. Fifty extracted molar teeth were used. Occlusal enamel was sectioned to expose flat dentin surface, which was further polished with 600-grit paper for smear layer standardization. The specimens were divided into two groups, G1: Single Bond total-etching adhesive (SB), and G2: Prime & Bond NT total-etching adhesive (PB). Each group was further divided into 5 subgroups according to the delayed light-cure initiation after the adhesive systems application (n=5): Subgroup 1s – 1 s; Subgroup 5s – 5 s; Subgroup 10s – 10 s; Subgroup 20s – 20 s; Subgroup 30s – 30 s. Composite resin cones 5 mm height and 10 mm in diameter were fabricated. Specimens were stored in distilled water at 37 °C for 24 h and sectioned to obtain 1×1 mm2 transversal specimens. Specimens were thermocycled and µTBS was measured. Data were submitted to two-way ANOVA (AdhesiveXDelay time) and Tukey׳s test. The level of significance was set at 5%. The results in mean MPa(±SD) for interaction between adhesive and delay time were: PB/1s – 23.82± 2.54a; SB/5s – 19.52± 2.67b; PB/5s – 18.56± 3.06bc; SB/1s – 15.49± 2.69cd; SB/20s – 16.33± 2.55d; SB/10s – 13.88 ±1.67d; PB/10s – 11.04 ±1.28e; PB/30s – 10.89± 1.31e; PB/20s – 10.24± 2.33e; SB/30s – 9.19±1.91e. It was concluded that light-cure initiation timing of total-etching adhesives interferes negatively with µTBS to dentin.
    International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 10/2014; 54:155–158. DOI:10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2014.06.001 · 2.22 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study aimed to evaluate the microtensile bond strength and amount of microleakage with self-etch adhesives. For the bond strength study, 50 human third molars were randomly assigned to five groups according to the adhesive system used. In each group, half of the specimens were subjected to the microtensile test immediately after the bonding procedures and tooth sectioning, while the remaining half were subjected to the test after storage in distilled water for 3 months. For the microleakage study, following the preparation and restoration of class V cavities, 70 human molars were divided into two groups for the five adhesives; the specimens in one group were stored in distilled water for 24 h and those in the other group were stored for 3 months. In both groups, the teeth were sectioned and evaluated for dye penetration after the storage time. After 24 h, the microtensile bond strengths in descending order were as follows: Clearfil SE Bond > G Aenial Bond > Optibond All-in-One (AiO) > Adper Prompt L Pop (hereafter L Pop) > Futurabond M. After 3 months, the µTBS of all five bonding agents was decreased, although the decrease was significant only for L Pop, which showed the highest scores for leakage around the enamel margins, whereas Futurabond M showed the highest scores for leakage around the gingival margins. After 3 months, the microleakages scores significantly increased for G Aenial Bond, Futurabond M and OptibondAiO.
    Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment 02/2015; 29(3). DOI:10.1080/13102818.2015.1008875 · 0.38 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study compared the microtensile bond strengths (μTBS) of two etch-and-rinse (ER) (OptiBond FL [OBFL]; Prime & Bond NT [PBNT]) and three self-etching (SE) (Clearfil SE Bond [CSEB]; Xeno III [XIII]; Xeno V+ [XV+]) adhesives systems to bur-prepared human enamel considering active (AA) and passive (PA) application of the self-etching systems. Ninety-six enamel surfaces were prepared with a medium-grit diamond bur and randomly allocated into 8 groups to receive adhesive restorations: G1: OBFL; G2: PBNT; G3: CSEB/PA; G4: CSEB/ AA; G5: XIII/PA; G6: XIII/AA; G7: XV+/PA; G8: XV+/AA. After composite buildup, samples were sectioned to obtain a total of 279 bonded sticks (1 mm2) that were submitted to microtensile testing (μTBS; 0.5 mm/min) after 24-h water storage (37°C). Etching patterns and adhesive interfacial ultramorphology were also evaluated with confocal laser scanning (CLSM) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Data was analyzed with one-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). Weibull probabilistic distribution was also determined. Regarding μTBS, both adhesive system and application mode yielded statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) among groups. ER adhesive systems together with CSEB/AA and XIII/PA recorded the highest and statistically similar bond strength results. XV+ presented very low bond strength values, regardless of the application mode. Among self-etching adhesives, CSEB produced significantly higher μTBS values when applied actively. Qualitative evaluation by SEM and CLSM revealed substantial differences between groups both in adhesive interfaces and enamel conditioning patterns. ER and SE adhesive systems presented distinctive bond strengths to bur-cut enamel. The application mode effect was adhesive dependent. Active application improved etching patterns and resin interfaces micromorphology.
    The journal of adhesive dentistry 04/2015; DOI:10.3290/j.jad.a34060 · 1.44 Impact Factor