OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of a filled adhesive (One-Step Plus; Bisco) versus an unfilled adhesive (One-Step; Bisco) on the microtensile bond strength (muTBS) to dentin using total-etch (Uni-etch; Bisco) and self-etch (Tyrian SPE; Bisco) techniques. METHODS:Twenty extracted human third molars were ground flat to expose occlusal dentin. After the dentin surfaces were polished with 600-grit SiC paper, the teeth were randomly assigned to four groups according to the bonding agent and technique being used. Dentin surfaces were bonded with One-Step Plus+total-etch; One-Step Plus+self-etch; One-Step+total-etch and One-Step+self-etch. Composite buildups were performed with Clearfil AP-X (Kuraray Medical). Following storage in distilled water at 37 degrees C for 24 h, the bonded specimens were serially sectioned into 0.7 mm-thick slabs and then trimmed to hour-glass shapes with a 1 mm2 cross-sectional area (n=20). Microtensile bond strengths were determined using the EZ-test (Shimadzu) at a cross-head speed of 1 mm/min. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the muTBS between One-Step Plus and One-Step adhesives when they were used with the total-etch and self-etch techniques (p>0.05). However with the total-etch technique both adhesives yielded significantly higher bond strength values than the self-etch technique (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The filled adhesive One-Step Plus did not show any beneficial effect than the unfilled adhesive One-Step on the muTBS to dentin with total-etch and self-etch techniques. Irrespective from the adhesive type, self-etch technique revealed lower bond strengths than the total-etch technique.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of a filled adhesive (One-Step Plus; Bisco) versus an unfilled adhesive (One-Step; Bisco) on the microtensile bond strength (muTBS) to dentin using total-etch (Uni-etch; Bisco) and self-etch (Tyrian SPE; Bisco) techniques. METHODS: Twenty extracted human third molars were ground flat to expose occlusal dentin. After the dentin surfaces were polished with 600-grit SiC paper, the teeth were randomly assigned to four groups according to the bonding agent and technique being used. Dentin surfaces were bonded with One-Step Plus+total-etch; One-Step Plus+self-etch; One-Step+total-etch and One-Step+self-etch. Composite buildups were performed with Clearfil AP-X (Kuraray Medical). Following storage in distilled water at 37 degrees C for 24 h, the bonded specimens were serially sectioned into 0.7 mm-thick slabs and then trimmed to hour-glass shapes with a 1 mm2 cross-sectional area (n=20). Microtensile bond strengths were determined using the EZ-test (Shimadzu) at a cross-head speed of 1 mm/min. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the muTBS between One-Step Plus and One-Step adhesives when they were used with the total-etch and self-etch techniques (p>0.05). However with the total-etch technique both adhesives yielded significantly higher bond strength values than the self-etch technique (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The filled adhesive One-Step Plus did not show any beneficial effect than the unfilled adhesive One-Step on the muTBS to dentin with total-etch and self-etch techniques. Irrespective from the adhesive type, self-etch technique revealed lower bond strengths than the total-etch technique.