OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the dentine microtensile bond strength (μTBS), nanoleakage (NL), degree of conversion (DC) within the hybrid layer for etch-and-rinse and self-etch strategies of universal simplified adhesive systems. METHODS:forty caries free extracted third molars were divided into 8 groups for μTBS (n=5), according to the adhesive and etching strategy: Clearfil SE Bond [CSE] and Adper Single Bond 2 [SB], as controls; Peak Universal Adhesive System, self-etch [PkSe] and etch-and-rinse [PkEr]; Scotchbond Universal Adhesive, self-etch [ScSe] and etch-and-rinse [ScEr]; All Bond Universal, self-etch [AlSe] and etch-and-rinse [AlEr]. After restorations were constructed, specimens were stored in water (37°C/24h) and then resin-dentine sticks were prepared (0.8mm(2)). The sticks were tested under tension at 0.5mm/min. Some sticks from each tooth group were used for DC determination by micro-Raman spectroscopy or nanoleakage evaluation (NL). The pH for each solution was evaluated using a pH metre. Data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α=0.05). RESULTS: For μTBS, only PkSe and PkEr were similar to the respective control groups (p>0.05). AlSe showed the lowest μTBS mean (p<0.05). For NL, ScEr, ScSe, AlSe, and AlEr showed the lowest NL similar to control groups (p<0.05). For DC, only ScSe showed lower DC than the other materials (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Performance of universal adhesives was shown to be material-dependent. The results indicate that this new category of universal adhesives used on dentine as either etch-and-rinse or self-etch strategies were inferior as regards at least one of the properties evaluated (μTBS, NL and DC) in comparison with the control adhesives (CSE for self-etch and SB for etch-and-rinse).
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the dentine microtensile bond strength (μTBS), nanoleakage (NL), degree of conversion (DC) within the hybrid layer for etch-and-rinse and self-etch strategies of universal simplified adhesive systems. METHODS: forty caries free extracted third molars were divided into 8 groups for μTBS (n=5), according to the adhesive and etching strategy: Clearfil SE Bond [CSE] and Adper Single Bond 2 [SB], as controls; Peak Universal Adhesive System, self-etch [PkSe] and etch-and-rinse [PkEr]; Scotchbond Universal Adhesive, self-etch [ScSe] and etch-and-rinse [ScEr]; All Bond Universal, self-etch [AlSe] and etch-and-rinse [AlEr]. After restorations were constructed, specimens were stored in water (37°C/24h) and then resin-dentine sticks were prepared (0.8mm(2)). The sticks were tested under tension at 0.5mm/min. Some sticks from each tooth group were used for DC determination by micro-Raman spectroscopy or nanoleakage evaluation (NL). The pH for each solution was evaluated using a pH metre. Data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α=0.05). RESULTS: For μTBS, only PkSe and PkEr were similar to the respective control groups (p>0.05). AlSe showed the lowest μTBS mean (p<0.05). For NL, ScEr, ScSe, AlSe, and AlEr showed the lowest NL similar to control groups (p<0.05). For DC, only ScSe showed lower DC than the other materials (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Performance of universal adhesives was shown to be material-dependent. The results indicate that this new category of universal adhesives used on dentine as either etch-and-rinse or self-etch strategies were inferior as regards at least one of the properties evaluated (μTBS, NL and DC) in comparison with the control adhesives (CSE for self-etch and SB for etch-and-rinse).
Authors: Marcos O Barceleiro; Leticia S Lopes; Chane Tardem; Fernanda S Calazans; Thalita P Matos; Alessandra Reis; Abraham Lincoln Calixto; Alessandro D Loguercio Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2022-02-10 Impact factor: 3.573