PURPOSE: To investigate bond strength and nanoleakage expression of universal adhesives (UA) bonded to dentin and etched enamel. METHODS: Extracted human third molars were sectioned and ground to obtain flat surfaces of dentin (n = 36) and enamel (n = 48). Dentin and etched enamel surfaces were bonded with one of two UAs, All-Bond Universal (ABU) or Scotchbond Universal (SBU); or a two-step self-etching adhesive, Clearfil SE Bond (CSEB). A hydrophobic bonding resin, Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Bond (ASMP Bond) was applied only on etched enamel. Following each bonding procedure, resin composite blocks were built up incrementally. The specimens were sectioned and subjected to microtensile bond strength (MTBS) testing after 24 hours or one year water storage, or immersed into ammoniacal silver nitrate solution after aging with 10,000 thermocycles and observed using scanning electron microscopy. The percentage distribution of silver particles at the adhesive/tooth interface was calculated using digital image-analysis software. RESULTS: The MTBS (CSEB = SBU > ABU, for dentin; and CSEB > ABU = SBU = ASMP Bond, for etched enamel) differed significantly between the adhesives after 24 hours. After one year, MTBS values were reduced significantly within the same adhesive for both substrates (analysis of variance, Bonferroni post hoc, p<0.05), and no significant differences were found among the adhesives for etched enamel. Silver particles could be detected within the adhesive/dentin interface of all specimens tested. Kruskal-Wallis mean ranks for nanoleakage in ABU, SBU, and CSEB were 16.9, 18.5 and 11, respectively (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In the short term, MTBS values were material and dental-substrate dependent. After aging, a decrease in bonding effectiveness was observed in all materials, with nanoleakage at the adhesive/dentin interface. The bonding of the UAs was equal or inferior to that of the conventional restorative systems when applied to either substrate and after either storage period.
PURPOSE: To investigate bond strength and nanoleakage expression of universal adhesives (UA) bonded to dentin and etched enamel. METHODS: Extracted human third molars were sectioned and ground to obtain flat surfaces of dentin (n = 36) and enamel (n = 48). Dentin and etched enamel surfaces were bonded with one of two UAs, All-Bond Universal (ABU) or Scotchbond Universal (SBU); or a two-step self-etching adhesive, Clearfil SE Bond (CSEB). A hydrophobic bonding resin, Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Bond (ASMP Bond) was applied only on etched enamel. Following each bonding procedure, resin composite blocks were built up incrementally. The specimens were sectioned and subjected to microtensile bond strength (MTBS) testing after 24 hours or one year water storage, or immersed into ammoniacal silver nitrate solution after aging with 10,000 thermocycles and observed using scanning electron microscopy. The percentage distribution of silver particles at the adhesive/tooth interface was calculated using digital image-analysis software. RESULTS: The MTBS (CSEB = SBU > ABU, for dentin; and CSEB > ABU = SBU = ASMP Bond, for etched enamel) differed significantly between the adhesives after 24 hours. After one year, MTBS values were reduced significantly within the same adhesive for both substrates (analysis of variance, Bonferroni post hoc, p<0.05), and no significant differences were found among the adhesives for etched enamel. Silver particles could be detected within the adhesive/dentin interface of all specimens tested. Kruskal-Wallis mean ranks for nanoleakage in ABU, SBU, and CSEB were 16.9, 18.5 and 11, respectively (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In the short term, MTBS values were material and dental-substrate dependent. After aging, a decrease in bonding effectiveness was observed in all materials, with nanoleakage at the adhesive/dentin interface. The bonding of the UAs was equal or inferior to that of the conventional restorative systems when applied to either substrate and after either storage period.
Authors: Anthony S Mennito; Michael Schmidt; Andrew Lane; Abigail Kelly; Camila Sabatini; Walter Renne; Zachary Evans Journal: Contemp Clin Dent Date: 2022-06-21
Authors: Mariana Dias Moda; Ticiane Cestari Fagundes; André Luiz Fraga Briso; Paulo Henrique Dos Santos Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-11-26 Impact factor: 3.240