PURPOSE: to determine the bond strength to unground enamel of all-in-one adhesives in comparison with an etch-andrinse system and to compare the reliability of microtensile and microshear methods in providing such measurements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: the bonding procedure was performed on enamel of 64 extracted molars. The tested all-inone adhesives were: Bond Force (Tokuyama), AdheSE One (Ivoclar-Vivadent), and Xeno V (Dentsply). Prime&Bond NT (Dentsply) served as control. Microtensile specimens were obtained from 4 teeth per group. Twelve teeth per group were used for microshear testing. Microtensile specimens that failed prior to testing were included in statistical calculations; they were assigned the lowest value measured in the respective group. Failure modes were observed under light microscope and classified (cohesive within substrates, adhesive, mixed). Statistically significant differences in bond strength were assessed among the adhesives within each testing method and between microshear and microtensile data for each adhesive. Failure mode distributions were compared using the chi-square test. RESULTS: all-in-one adhesives had similar microshear and microtensile bond strengths. In both testing methods, the etch-and-rinse system achieved the strongest bond. For all adhesives, significantly higher bond strengths were measured with the microshear test. In microtensile testing, specimens bonded with the etch-and-rinse adhesive exhibited a significantly different distribution of failure modes. The coefficients of variation were extremely high for microtensile bond strength data, particularly of all-in-one adhesives. CONCLUSION: the adhesive potential to intact enamel of recently introduced all-in-one adhesives was inferior to that of an etch-and-rinse system. When testing bond strength to enamel of all-in-one adhesives, microshear testing may be a more accurate method than microtensile.
PURPOSE: to determine the bond strength to unground enamel of all-in-one adhesives in comparison with an etch-andrinse system and to compare the reliability of microtensile and microshear methods in providing such measurements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: the bonding procedure was performed on enamel of 64 extracted molars. The tested all-inone adhesives were: Bond Force (Tokuyama), AdheSE One (Ivoclar-Vivadent), and Xeno V (Dentsply). Prime&Bond NT (Dentsply) served as control. Microtensile specimens were obtained from 4 teeth per group. Twelve teeth per group were used for microshear testing. Microtensile specimens that failed prior to testing were included in statistical calculations; they were assigned the lowest value measured in the respective group. Failure modes were observed under light microscope and classified (cohesive within substrates, adhesive, mixed). Statistically significant differences in bond strength were assessed among the adhesives within each testing method and between microshear and microtensile data for each adhesive. Failure mode distributions were compared using the chi-square test. RESULTS: all-in-one adhesives had similar microshear and microtensile bond strengths. In both testing methods, the etch-and-rinse system achieved the strongest bond. For all adhesives, significantly higher bond strengths were measured with the microshear test. In microtensile testing, specimens bonded with the etch-and-rinse adhesive exhibited a significantly different distribution of failure modes. The coefficients of variation were extremely high for microtensile bond strength data, particularly of all-in-one adhesives. CONCLUSION: the adhesive potential to intact enamel of recently introduced all-in-one adhesives was inferior to that of an etch-and-rinse system. When testing bond strength to enamel of all-in-one adhesives, microshear testing may be a more accurate method than microtensile.