PURPOSE: This study compared microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of six simplified adhesive systems and an etch-andrinse, one-bottle adhesive system to intact enamel. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight sound incisor teeth were cut at the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) under water cooling. The enamel surfaces were cleaned with pumice, randomly assigned to seven groups and treated with one of the following adhesives: Hybrid Bond (Sun Medical); AdheSE One (Ivoclar/Vivadent); One Coat 7.0 (Coltene/Whaledent); Danville Experimental (Danville Materials); Clearfil S3 Bond (Kuraray); G Bond (GC); and Prelude Total-etch (Danville Materials) as control. Composite resin (Clearfil AP-X, Kuraray) buildups were created and after 24 h, the teeth were sectioned into beams of 1.0 mm2 cross-sectional area. Each beam was tested in a microtensile tester (Bisco) at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Data were calculated as MPa and analyzed by one-way ANOVA. Multiple comparisons were done using the Tukey test. RESULTS: μTBS values of adhesives to intact enamel were as follows (mean ± SD; different letters indicate statistically different groups, p < 0.05): Hybrid Bond: 15.62 ± 3.90a; AdheSE One: 17.29 ± 3.88ab; One Coat 7.0: 19.59 ± 3.95abc; Danville Experimental: 18.65 ± 5.33abc; Clearfil S3 Bond:20.89 ± 2.96bcd; G Bond: 23.49 ± 4.21cd; Prelude Totaletch: 25.79 ± 5.24d. CONCLUSIONS: Clearfil S3 Bond and G Bond showed bond strength similar to Prelude Total-etch (p = 0.064). The other simplified adhesives showed a similar performance (p = 0.239), however, μTBS values to intact enamel of these systems were lower than those obtained by Prelude Total-etch (p < 0.05).
PURPOSE: This study compared microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of six simplified adhesive systems and an etch-andrinse, one-bottle adhesive system to intact enamel. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight sound incisor teeth were cut at the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) under water cooling. The enamel surfaces were cleaned with pumice, randomly assigned to seven groups and treated with one of the following adhesives: Hybrid Bond (Sun Medical); AdheSE One (Ivoclar/Vivadent); One Coat 7.0 (Coltene/Whaledent); Danville Experimental (Danville Materials); Clearfil S3 Bond (Kuraray); G Bond (GC); and Prelude Total-etch (Danville Materials) as control. Composite resin (Clearfil AP-X, Kuraray) buildups were created and after 24 h, the teeth were sectioned into beams of 1.0 mm2 cross-sectional area. Each beam was tested in a microtensile tester (Bisco) at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Data were calculated as MPa and analyzed by one-way ANOVA. Multiple comparisons were done using the Tukey test. RESULTS: μTBS values of adhesives to intact enamel were as follows (mean ± SD; different letters indicate statistically different groups, p < 0.05): Hybrid Bond: 15.62 ± 3.90a; AdheSE One: 17.29 ± 3.88ab; One Coat 7.0: 19.59 ± 3.95abc; Danville Experimental: 18.65 ± 5.33abc; Clearfil S3 Bond:20.89 ± 2.96bcd; G Bond: 23.49 ± 4.21cd; Prelude Totaletch: 25.79 ± 5.24d. CONCLUSIONS: Clearfil S3 Bond and G Bond showed bond strength similar to Prelude Total-etch (p = 0.064). The other simplified adhesives showed a similar performance (p = 0.239), however, μTBS values to intact enamel of these systems were lower than those obtained by Prelude Total-etch (p < 0.05).