This study examined the early and long-term microtensile bond strengths (MTBS) and interfacial enamel gap formation (IGW) of two-step self-etch systems to unground and ground enamel. Resin composite (Filtek Z250) buildups were bonded to proximal enamel surfaces (unground, bur-cut or SiC-treated enamel) of third molars after the application of four self-etch adhesives: a mild (Clearfil SE Bond [SE]), two moderate (Optibond Solo Plus Self-Etch Primer [SO] and AdheSE [AD]) and a strong adhesive (Tyrian Self Priming Etchant + One Step Plus [TY]) and two etch-and-rinse adhesive systems (Single Bond [SB] and Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus [SBMP]). Ten tooth halves were assigned for each adhesive. After storage in water (24 hours/37 degrees C), the bonded specimens were sectioned into beams (0.9 mm2) and subjected to microTBS (0.5 mm/minute) or interfacial gap width measurement (stereomicroscope at 400x) either immediately (IM) or after 12 months (12M) of water storage. The data were analyzed by three-way repeated measures ANOVA and Tukey's test (alpha=0.05). No gap formation was observed in any experimental condition. The microTBS in the Si-C paper and diamond bur groups were similar and greater than the unground group only for the moderate self-etch systems (SO and AD). No reductions in bond strength values were observed after 12 months of water storage, regardless of the adhesive evaluated.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.2341/07-42 | DOI Listing |
Evid Based Dent
January 2025
Department of Research Analytics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, Chennai, India.
Objective: This study aimed to identify and evaluate scholarly research on the efficacy, durability, and long-term stability of various adhesive systems used for bonding direct resin composite restorations and to identify factors influencing bonding performance, such as adhesive composition, application protocol, substrate type, and etching technique.
Materials And Methods: An all-inclusive electronic database search for peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles was conducted using PubMed, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, Dimensions, and the Cochrane Library for research articles investigating the effectiveness of different adhesive systems in direct resin composite restorations, excluding reviews, meta-analyses, opinion pieces, and case reports. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool (Robvis 2.
Dent Mater
December 2024
Graduate Program in Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Rua Ramiro Barcelos, Porto Alegre 2492, Brazil; Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Rua Ramiro Barcelos, Porto Alegre 2492, Brazil. Electronic address:
Objectives: To evaluate the self-etch bonding potential of universal adhesive systems with varying acidic compositions by analyzing the wettability properties, topographical change, and microshear bond strength (µSBS) to enamel.
Methods: Eight universal adhesives were tested: All-Bond Universal (Bisco), Ambar Universal (FGM), Gluma Bond Universal (Kulzer), OptiBond Universal (Kerr), Peak Universal Bond (Ultradent), Prime&Bond Universal (Dentsply), Singlebond Universal (3 M ESPE), and Tetric N-Bond Universal (Ivoclar). Bovine incisors were prepared and treated with each adhesive according to the manufacturer's instructions.
Dent J (Basel)
December 2024
Department of Teeth and Dental Arches Morphology, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science and Technology of Targu Mures, 540139 Targu Mures, Romania.
Polymerization shrinkage of composite resins affects the marginal closure of direct dental restorations. It is responsible for developing secondary caries and indirectly affects the survival rate of restorations. This study aims to investigate the null hypothesis, which states that there are no significant differences in the marginal microleakage of Class II restorations when examined in vitro using different dental adhesives, whether the restoration material used is a composite with glass fiber reinforcement or not.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFCureus
November 2024
Department of Endodontic and Operative Dentistry, Damascus University, Damascus, SYR.
Objectives This study aimed to compare the shear bond strength of three resin cements (light-cured resin cement, pre-heated composite resin, and dual-cured self-adhesive resin cement) when bonding to lithium disilicate discs. Materials and methods Thirty-six discs made of lithium disilicate were fabricated and etched with 9.5% (HF), and 36 human premolars were collected and immersed in the acrylic molds, then randomly divided into three equal groups (n = 12): Group 1: light-cured resin cement, Group 2: pre-heated resin composite, and Group 3: dual-cured resin cement.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBDJ Open
December 2024
Department of Restorative Dental Science, College of Dentistry, Taibah University, Madinah, Saudi Arabia.
Objective: Evaluating immediate and delayed micro shear bond strength (µSBS) between composite resin and glass ionomer cements using different adhesive systems and mechanical surface treatment.
Materials And Methods: A total of 240 specimens of glass ionomer restorative materials were divided into two groups: Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement (RMGIC) namely Riva Light Cure and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement (CGIC) namely Riva Self Cure. These were subdivided into immediate (24 h) and delayed (3 months) storage and further divided into smooth, medium, and rough surface treatment with either total etch (TE) or self-etch (SE) adhesive strategies.
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!