Two Adhesive Systems-effect on Adhesion to Tooth Structure

2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (7) ◽  
pp. 2608-2613
Author(s):  
Larisa Simona Deac ◽  
Kamel Earar ◽  
Adela Loredana Colceriu Burtea ◽  
Alexandra Stefania Berghe ◽  
Aurora Antoniac ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Hybrid Layer ◽  
Tooth Structure ◽  
Selective Etch ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Wisdom Teeth ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Group 1

This study evaluates and compares by dye penetration method and SEM photomicrographs the sealing obtained using two different classes of adhesive systems (etch-and-rinse and self-etch with selective etching) with SDR (Dentsply) bulk fill composite. 84 class V cavities were prepared on oral and vestibular face of 42 intact, freshly extracted wisdom teeth. The cavities were randomly divided in two groups and restored: Group 1 with prime &bond one select (Dentsply) and SDR (Dentsply) and Group 2 with prime&bond one Etch&Rinse (Dentsply) and SDR (Dentsply). Prime&bond one Select (Dentsply) is a single component adhesive and can be used in self etch mode, in selective enamel etch mode, or in etch-and-rinse mode. We chosen for this study the selective etch of the enamel mode. Prime&bond one Etch Rinse (Dentsply) is a universal etch-and-rinse one-bottle dental adhesive, designed to be used in two steps. The bulk fill composites are commonly used in modern dentistry due to their properties of low polymerization shrinkage and curing in layer of 4 mm depth, offering the practitioner a fast clinical procedure with good results. The results showed a good sealing at enamel and dentin margins with no statistically significant difference between adhesives, even though the mean of enamel infiltration was smaller for Group1. Furthermore the results show that there were differences between the two groups, for the infiltrations at the enamel, the values of microleakage being arithmetically higher for Group 1, but with no statistically difference between the two groups.SEM images showed for both groups a good adhesion surface with the tooth, but the hybrid layer of the total-etch adhesives is different from the hybrid layer formed by self etch adhesives, in terms of thickness, uniformity. In conclusion both adhesive systems have equivalent sealing qualities and can be successfully used with SDR.

scholarly journals Shear Bond Strengths of Different Adhesive Systems to Biodentine

2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mesut Enes Odabaş ◽  
Mehmet Bani ◽  
Resmiye Ebru Tirali
Keyword(s):  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Time Intervals ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Bond Strengths ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Group 1

The aim of this study was to measure the shear bond strength of different adhesive systems to Biodentine with different time intervals. Eighty specimens of Biodentine were prepared and divided into 8 groups. After 12 minutes, 40 samples were randomly selected and divided into 4 groups of 10 each: group 1: (etch-and-rinse adhesive system) Prime & Bond NT; group 2: (2-step self-etch adhesive system) Clearfil SE Bond; group 3: (1-step self-etch adhesive systems) Clearfil S3Bond; group 4: control (no adhesive). After the application of adhesive systems, composite resin was applied over Biodentine. This procedure was repeated 24 hours after mixing additional 40 samples, respectively. Shear bond strengths were measured using a universal testing machine, and the data were subjected to 1-way analysis of variance and Scheffé post hoc test. No significant differences were found between all of the adhesive groups at the same time intervals (12 minutes and 24 hours) (). Among the two time intervals, the lowest value was obtained for group 1 (etch-and-rinse adhesive) at a 12-minute period, and the highest was obtained for group 2 (two-step self-etch adhesive) at a 24-hour period. The placement of composite resin used with self-etch adhesive systems over Biodentine showed better shear bond strength.

scholarly journals Microshear Bond Strength of Different Adhesive Systems to Dentin

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Valizadeh ◽  
Aida Moradi ◽  
Mansooreh Mirazei ◽  
Hooman Amiri ◽  
Mohammad Javad Kharazifard
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Microshear Bond Strength ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Composite Cylinders

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the microshear bond strength (µSBS) of various adhesive systems to dentin. Materials and Methods: In this in vitro experimental study, 60 sound human third molars were divided into four groups. Dentin discs were prepared of middle-third dentin measuring 4 mm in diameter and 2 mm in thickness. Dentin surfaces were bonded with one of the four types of adhesives: (A) Single Bond (3M ESPE), Scotchbond Universal (3M ESPE) in etch and rinse (B) and self-etch (C) modes and (D) Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray Noritake Dental). After the application of adhesive systems according to the manufacturers’ instructions, composite cylinders (Vit-l-escence) were bonded to dentin surfaces. The μSBS test was performed using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test (α=0.05). Results: The µSBS was the highest in self-etch Scotchbond Universal (15.8±6.08 MPa) followed by Clearfil SE Bond (15.24±4.6 MPa), etch and rinse Scotchbond Universal (11.68±4.07MPa) and Single Bond (11.24±3.74 MPa). A significant difference was only found between Single Bond and etch and rinse Scotchbond Universal groups (P=0.04). Conclusion: Based on the results of this study, application of Scotchbond Universal in self-etch mode provides a reliable bond to dentin.

scholarly journals Microshear Bond Strength of Different Adhesive Systems to Dentin

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Valizadeh ◽  
Aida Moradi ◽  
Mansooreh Mirazei ◽  
Hooman Amiri ◽  
Mohammad Javad Kharazifard
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Microshear Bond Strength ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Composite Cylinders

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the microshear bond strength (µSBS) of various adhesive systems to dentin. Materials and Methods: In this in vitro experimental study, 60 sound human third molars were divided into four groups. Dentin discs were prepared of middle-third dentin measuring 4 mm in diameter and 2 mm in thickness. Dentin surfaces were bonded with one of the four types of adhesives: (A) Single Bond (3M ESPE), Scotchbond Universal (3M ESPE) in etch and rinse (B) and self-etch (C) modes and (D) Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray Noritake Dental). After the application of adhesive systems according to the manufacturers’ instructions, composite cylinders (Vit-l-escence) were bonded to dentin surfaces. The μSBS test was performed using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test (α=0.05). Results: The µSBS was the highest in self-etch Scotchbond Universal (15.8±6.08 MPa) followed by Clearfil SE Bond (15.24±4.6 MPa), etch and rinse Scotchbond Universal (11.68±4.07MPa) and Single Bond (11.24±3.74 MPa). A significant difference was only found between Single Bond and etch and rinse Scotchbond Universal groups (P=0.04). Conclusion: Based on the results of this study, application of Scotchbond Universal in self-etch mode provides a reliable bond to dentin.

scholarly journals Perbedaan kekuatan geser resin komposit nanohybrid dengan teknik water-wet bonding dan ethanol-wet bonding terhadap dentin

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 20
Author(s):  
Fara Dwiyanti ◽  
Ruslan Effendy ◽  
Setyabudi Setyabudi
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Tooth Structure ◽  
Bonding Material ◽  
Complex Process ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Bonding Technique ◽  
Group 1

Background: Composite resins are widely used today to replace lost tooth structure. Bonding between dentin and resin is a complex process that is influenced by several factors; one of which is ambient humidity. During drying after acid etching, it is recommended not to leave the surface of preparation too dry or too wet. If the surface is too dry, collagen will shrink and collapse. As a result, the bonding material cannot penetrate into the cavity between the fibers. If the dentine is too wet, the bonding material will also be difficult to bind with the collagen, either chemically or mechanically. The amount of water around the collagen closely correlates with the moisture created around the dentin surface during the drying process and also whether or not a rubber dam was used during the preparation process. This study is aimed to compare water wet bonding and ethanol wet bonding technique to control humidity. One way of measuring the strength of bonding is to measure shear strength. Purpose: to compare water wet-bonding and ethanol wet-bonding technique.Materials and Methods: 32 samples of bovine teeth incisors were randomly divided into 2 group. Each group consists of sixteen samples. Group 1 is treated with water wet-bonding,group 2 is treated with ethanol wet-bonding. Results: There is significant difference between group 1 and group 2. Conclusion: Shear bond strength of the composite resin bonding on dentin with ethanol wet-bonding technique is higher than the shear bond strength of the composite bonding on dentin with water wet-bonding.

Effect of the Photo-initiator System Contained in Universal Adhesives on Radicular Dentin Bonding

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (5) ◽  
pp. 547-555
Author(s):  
RF Carvalho ◽  
AFM Cardenas ◽  
CN Carvalho ◽  
JJ de Souza ◽  
JRO Bauer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Fiber Post ◽  
Hybrid Layer ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Polymerization System ◽  
Feasible Alternative ◽  
Universal Adhesives ◽  
Initiator System ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Push Out

Clinical Relevance The photo-initiator system based on an advanced polymerization system may be an alternative that can be used to overcome the disadvantages of radicular dentin, especially for the apical third. SUMMARY Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of universal adhesives with different photo-initiator systems applied in etch-and-rinse (ER) and self-etch (SE) modes on dentin interaction (push-out bond strength [PBS], nanoleakage [NL], and degree of conversion [DC] within the hybrid layer) in the different root thirds after fiber post cementation. Methods and Materials: Roots of endodontically prepared human premolars were randomly divided into six groups according to one of three adhesive systems (Scotchbond Universal [SBU], Ambar Universal [AMB], and Ambar Universal APS [AMB-APS]) and two adhesive strategies (ER and SE) for each system. Posts were cemented, and PBS was tested at 0.5 mm/min. The NL was evaluated by scanning electron microscopy. DC was measured using micro-Raman spectroscopy. The data were analyzed by three-way analysis of variance and Tukey tests (α=0.05). Results: AMB-APS showed similar performance in all root thirds (p>0.05) and higher values of DC, especially in the apical third (p<0.0001). AMB and SBU showed the lowest values in the apical third (p<0.0001). Conclusions: The APS photo-initiator system contained in universal adhesives is a feasible alternative for improving radicular bonding procedure.

scholarly journals A 48-month Clinical Evaluation of Fissure Sealants Placed With Different Adhesive Systems

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 369-375 ◽  
Author(s):  
E Karaman ◽  
AR Yazici ◽  
D Tuncer ◽  
E Firat ◽  
S Unluer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Retention Rates ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Fissure Sealants ◽  
Evaluation Period ◽  
Fissure Sealant ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
One Step ◽  
Adhesive Application ◽  
Self Etch

SUMMARYAimTo compare the retention rates of a nanofilled occlusal fissure sealant placed with the use of an etch-and-rinse or a self-etch adhesive over 48 months.Materials and MethodsThe authors enrolled 244 teeth, each with no restoration or sealant and no detectable caries, from 16 patients. The sealants were placed with Solobond M two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive or Futurabond NR one-step self-etch adhesive by four previously calibrated dentists using a table of random numbers. After completion of the adhesive application, a nanofilled sealant, Grandio Seal, was applied and light-cured. Two other calibrated examiners, who were unaware of which adhesive had been used, independently evaluated the sealants at baseline and at 12-, 24-, 36-, and 48-month recalls. Each sealant was evaluated in terms of caries formation being present or absent and retention using the following criteria: 1 = completely retained, 2 = partial loss, and 3 = total loss. The Pearson χ2 test was used to evaluate differences in retention rates among the sealants used with different adhesives for each evaluation period.ResultsThe retention rates for sealants in the Solobond M group were significantly higher than those in the Futurabond NR group in all periods of evaluation (p<0.05). No statistically significant difference between the retention rates for premolars and molars was found at each evaluation period (p>0.05). There was no new caries formation throughout the 48-month recall period.ConclusionFissure sealants placed with etch-and-rinse adhesive showed better retention rates than those placed with self-etch adhesive.

scholarly journals Randomized Clinical Trial of Composite Restorations in Primary Teeth: Effect of Adhesive System after Three Years

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Secil Bektaş Donmez ◽  
Melek D. Turgut ◽  
Serdar Uysal ◽  
Pinar Ozdemir ◽  
Meryem Tekcicek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Teeth ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
The Self ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Self Etch

The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical performance of composite restorations placed with different adhesive systems in primary teeth. In 32 patients, 128 composite restorations were placed using a split-mouth design as follows (4 groups/patient): three-step etch-and-rinse (Group 1), two-step etch-and-rinse (Group 2), two-step self-etch (Group 3), and one-step self-etch (Group 4). The restorations were clinically evaluated at baseline and at 6, 18, and 36 months according to the FDI criteria. There was no significant difference between the adhesive systems in retention of the restorations (p>0.05). Over time, there was a statistically significant decrease in marginal adaptation in all groups, whereas surface and marginal staining significantly increased in Groups 3 and 4 (p<0.05). The etch-and-rinse adhesive systems resulted in better marginal adaptation than the self-etch adhesive systems (p<0.05). It was concluded that preetching of the primary enamel might help improve the clinical performance of the self-etch adhesive systems in primary teeth.

scholarly journals Effect of Different Adhesion Protocols on the Shear Bond Strength of Universal Adhesive Systems to Sound and Artificial Caries-Affected Dentin

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Omnia M. Sami ◽  
Essam A. Naguib ◽  
Rasha H. Afifi ◽  
Shaymaa M. Nagi
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Failure Modes ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Universal Adhesive ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Self Etch

Abstract Objective Bonding to different dentin substrates influences resin composite restoration outcomes. This study investigated the influence of different adhesion protocols on the shear bond strength of universal adhesive systems to sound and artificial caries-affected dentin (CAD). Materials and Methods Occlusal enamel of 80 premolars were wet grinded to obtain flat midcoronal dentin. Specimens were equally divided according to the substrate condition: sound and CAD by subjecting to pH-cycling for 14 days. Each dentin substrate was bonded with the adhesive systems used in this study: Single Bond universal adhesive or Prime&Bond universal (applied either in etch-and-rinse or self-etch adhesion protocol). Adhesive systems were utilized according to manufacturers’ instructions, then resin composite was built up. Specimens were tested for shear bond strength. The data were analyzed by three-way analysis of variance, and failure modes were determined using stereomicroscope. Results There was no statistically significant difference between the two tested adhesive systems on artificially created CAD with different adhesion protocols. On sound dentin, Single Bond universal, either in the etch-and-rinse or self-etch adhesion protocols, revealed higher statistically significant shear bond strength mean values compared with CAD. Conclusion Single Bond universal adhesive in an etch-and-rinse adhesion protocol improved only bonding to sound dentin, while no added positive effect for the etching step with Prime&Bond universal adhesive was found when bonded to both sound and CAD substrates. The influence of CAD on the performance of the universal adhesives was material-dependent.

scholarly journals Comparison between Shear Bond Strength of Er:YAG and Er,Cr:YSGG Lasers-Assisted Dentinal Adhesion of Self-Adhering Resin Composite: An Ex Vivo Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 66
Author(s):  
Paul Nahas ◽  
Samir Nammour ◽  
Elie Gerges ◽  
Toni Zeinoun
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Laser Irradiation ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Tooth Structure ◽  
Resin Infiltration ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Group 1

(1) Background: Bonding composite to tooth structure is still evolving with a substitute for phosphoric acid being the main challenge. Lately, a self-adhering composite (SAC) was developed, promising to simplify bonding to tooth structure. Unfortunately, retention especially to dentin, was not as good as the gold standard three steps bonding system. During the last 2 decades, lasers were used to enhance shear bond strength of composite to tooth structure. However, the literature provided limited information regarding laser efficiency in the immediate, as well as the long term, adhesion success of SACs to dentin. The purpose of our study was to define the optimal irradiation conditions to improve the adhesion of self-adhering flowable resin composite to dentin exposed to Er:YAG and Er,Cr:YSGG laser irradiation. (2) Methods: Seventy-two freshly extracted human third molars, prepared to have flat dentinal surfaces, were randomly divided into three groups (n = 24) including a control group (Group 1) in which dentin was left without laser irradiation. The other two groups (Group 2 and 3) received standardized irradiation at a speed of 1 mm/second with Er:YAG (60 mJ; SSP mode = 50 μs; 10 Hz; fluency of 9.4 J/cm2; beam diameter: 0.9 mm; air 6 mL/min; and water 4 mL/min), and Er,Cr:YSGG: 1.5 W; fluency of 17.8 J/cm2; turbo handpiece with MX5 short insert; 20 Hz under air/water spray (65% air, 55% water). Self-adhering flowable resin was applied to dentin in all groups. Half of the specimens were stored in water for 24 h while the other half underwent 3000 thermal cycles. Later, all specimens received a shear bond strength test. Fracture observation was done first under a stereomicroscope then by using a scanning electron microscope. (3) Results: The mean values of shear bond strength for both laser-treated dentin groups (Er:YAG laser: 13.10 ± 1.291, and Er,Cr:YSGG: 14.04 ± 5.233) were higher than in the control group 1 (8.355 ± 2.297) before thermocycling. After thermocycling, shear bond strength decreased in all groups as follows: 10.03 ± 1.503, 10.53 ± 2.631, and 02.75 ± 1.583 for Er:YAG, Er,Cr:YSGG, and nonirradiated dentin, respectively. Shear bond strength values showed a significant difference between the control group (Group 1) and both lasers groups (Group 2 and 3). Statistical analysis of stereomicroscope observation revealed no significant difference between laser irradiation and failure mode (p < 0.136). SEM observation of the dentin surface in both laser-irradiated groups showed opened tubules, absence of smear layer as well as an increase of resin infiltration into dentinal tubules. (4) Conclusion: Er:YAG and Er,Cr:YSGG lasers enhance self-adhering flowable resin shear bond strength values and improve its longevity by eliminating the smear layer, opening dentinal tubules and increasing resin infiltration into the microstructure.

scholarly journals Resistance to Dislodgement of REBILDA® Post System to Intraradicular Dentin

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 47
Author(s):  
Daphne Ross DDS ◽  
Carlos E. Filloy Esna DDS ◽  
Juan Carlos Ramírez-Barrantes DDS, MSD, PhD
Keyword(s):  
Electron Microscopy ◽  
Scanning Electron Microscopy ◽  
Bond Strength ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Root Reinforcement ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Push Out ◽  
Scanning Electron ◽  
Group 1

Currently there is controversy in the literature about clinical and adhesive effectiveness with respect to adhesive systems aimed to  root reinforcement. Thus, the objective of this study was to evaluate the Push-Out bond strength between the Rebilda® post system and the intraradicular dentine. Thus, 28 unirradicular teeth were used, cut and standardized in 16 mm. The root segments were submitted to endodontic treatment; and then randomly divided into two groups, Group 1 (n = 14): Rebilda® DC + Futurabond DC; Group 2 (n = 14): RelyX ARC + Adper Scothbond Multipurpose Plus. Ten specimens from each group were submitted  to the Push-Out Test. The remaining 4 specimens from each group were prepared for Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) in order to evaluate the formation of resinous extensions at the post-cement-dentin interface. Group 2 showed better results when compared to Group 1 regarding bond strength and in formation of resinous extensions or tags, but there was no statistically significant difference (p>0.05). It was concluded that the REBILDA® Post System promotes adequate bond strength to intraradicular dentin.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document