PURPOSE: Universal bonding agents have been introduced for use as self-etch or etch-and-rinse adhesives depending on the dental substrate and clinician's preference. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of composite to enamel using universal adhesives compared to a self-etch adhesive when applied in self-etch and etch-and-rinse modes over time. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Extracted human third molars were used to create 120 enamel specimens. The specimens were ground flat and randomly divided into three groups: two universal adhesives and one self-etch adhesive. Each group was then subdivided, with half the specimens bonded in self-etch mode and half in etch-and-rinse mode. The adhesives were applied as per manufacturers' instructions, and composite was bonded using a standardized mold and cured incrementally. The groups were further divided into two subgroups with 10 specimens each. One subgroup was stored for 24 hours and the second for six months in 37°C distilled water and tested in shear. Failure mode was also determined for each specimen. RESULTS: A three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) found a significant difference between groups based on bonding agent (p<0.001) and surface treatment (p<0.001) but not on time (p=0.943), with no significant interaction (p>0.05). Clearfil SE in etch-and-rinse and self-etch modes had more mixed fractures than either universal adhesive in either mode. CONCLUSIONS: Etching enamel significantly increased the SBS of composite to enamel. Clearfil SE had significantly greater bond strength to enamel than either universal adhesive, which were not significantly different from each other.
PURPOSE: Universal bonding agents have been introduced for use as self-etch or etch-and-rinse adhesives depending on the dental substrate and clinician's preference. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of composite to enamel using universal adhesives compared to a self-etch adhesive when applied in self-etch and etch-and-rinse modes over time. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Extracted human third molars were used to create 120 enamel specimens. The specimens were ground flat and randomly divided into three groups: two universal adhesives and one self-etch adhesive. Each group was then subdivided, with half the specimens bonded in self-etch mode and half in etch-and-rinse mode. The adhesives were applied as per manufacturers' instructions, and composite was bonded using a standardized mold and cured incrementally. The groups were further divided into two subgroups with 10 specimens each. One subgroup was stored for 24 hours and the second for six months in 37°C distilled water and tested in shear. Failure mode was also determined for each specimen. RESULTS: A three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) found a significant difference between groups based on bonding agent (p<0.001) and surface treatment (p<0.001) but not on time (p=0.943), with no significant interaction (p>0.05). Clearfil SE in etch-and-rinse and self-etch modes had more mixed fractures than either universal adhesive in either mode. CONCLUSIONS: Etching enamel significantly increased the SBS of composite to enamel. Clearfil SE had significantly greater bond strength to enamel than either universal adhesive, which were not significantly different from each other.