PURPOSE: To determine the microtensile bond strength (µTBS) of two 2-step self-etch adhesives (SEAs) to bur-cut and uncut enamel. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The buccal and lingual enamel surfaces of 15 teeth were ground flat ("bur-cut" enamel), while the enamel surface of another set of 15 teeth was solely prophylactically cleaned ("uncut" enamel). Resin composite was bonded to the surfaces using the GPDM-based SEA OptiBond XTR (Kerr), the 10-MDP-based SEA Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray Noritake), or the 3-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (E&RA) OptiBond FL (Kerr) that served as the gold-standard control. After 1-week water storage at 37°C, specimens were serially cut into 1-mm2 stick-shaped microspecimens, of which half per tooth were further subjected to 20,000 thermocycles (TC) prior to µTBS testing. Data were statistically analyzed using ANOVA and the post-hoc Tukey test. The interfacial ultrastructure of the GPDM-based SEA OptiBond XTR with uncut and bur-cut enamel was additionally characterized with transmission electron microscopy (TEM). RESULTS: After 1-week water storage and upon TC aging, both SEAs bonded significantly (p < 0.05) less effectively to both bur-cut and uncut enamel than did the control OptiBond FL, except when OptiBond XTR was bonded to bur-cut enamel; then a similarly high µTBS was recorded (p > 0.05). TEM interfacial characterization revealed a tight interaction of Optibond XTR with both bur-cut and uncut enamel. CONCLUSION: The best bonding efficacy to enamel is still achieved by etching with phosphoric acid, following an E&R approach, while the higher etching efficacy of the GPDM-based SEA may result in equally effective bonding, provided that the enamel is bur-roughened first.
PURPOSE: To determine the microtensile bond strength (µTBS) of two 2-step self-etch adhesives (SEAs) to bur-cut and uncut enamel. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The buccal and lingual enamel surfaces of 15 teeth were ground flat ("bur-cut" enamel), while the enamel surface of another set of 15 teeth was solely prophylactically cleaned ("uncut" enamel). Resin composite was bonded to the surfaces using the GPDM-based SEA OptiBond XTR (Kerr), the 10-MDP-based SEA Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray Noritake), or the 3-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (E&RA) OptiBond FL (Kerr) that served as the gold-standard control. After 1-week water storage at 37°C, specimens were serially cut into 1-mm2 stick-shaped microspecimens, of which half per tooth were further subjected to 20,000 thermocycles (TC) prior to µTBS testing. Data were statistically analyzed using ANOVA and the post-hoc Tukey test. The interfacial ultrastructure of the GPDM-based SEA OptiBond XTR with uncut and bur-cut enamel was additionally characterized with transmission electron microscopy (TEM). RESULTS: After 1-week water storage and upon TC aging, both SEAs bonded significantly (p < 0.05) less effectively to both bur-cut and uncut enamel than did the control OptiBond FL, except when OptiBond XTR was bonded to bur-cut enamel; then a similarly high µTBS was recorded (p > 0.05). TEM interfacial characterization revealed a tight interaction of Optibond XTR with both bur-cut and uncut enamel. CONCLUSION: The best bonding efficacy to enamel is still achieved by etching with phosphoric acid, following an E&R approach, while the higher etching efficacy of the GPDM-based SEA may result in equally effective bonding, provided that the enamel is bur-roughened first.
Entities:
Keywords:
TEM; adhesion; etching; functional monomer; microtensile bond strength