Bonding of universal adhesive system to enamel surrounding real-life carious cavities

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the bond strength of a universal adhesive system to enamel surrounding real-life carious cavities. Twentyeight permanent molars (n = 7) with carious lesions in dentin were subjected to selective carious tissue removal to firm dentin and had their crowns sectioned longitudinally. A universal adhesive system (Single Bond Universal [SBU] used in either etch-and-rinse and self-etch strategies) was compared with an etch-and-rinse Adper Single Bond 2 (ASB) and a selfetch Clearfil SE Bond (CSE) adhesive systems (control systems). Adhesives were applied on the enamel, assumed demineralized, surrounding the cavity margins and on sound enamel (control substrate). Composite cylinders were built (0.72 mm 2) and microshear bond strength (µSBS) test was performed after 24 h of water storage. The µSBS values (MPa) were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc tests (α = 0.05). Bond strength values obtained in demineralized enamel surrounding carious cavity margins were significantly lower than that obtained in sound enamel (distant from carious cavity margins) (p = 0.035). The bonding strategy of the SBU did not influenced the bond strength values, which were higher than that obtained with ASB. CSE showed similar µSBS values to ASB and SBU in the self-etch mode. In conclusion, the bond strength to enamel assumed demineralized is lower than to sound enamel. The enamel surrounding carious cavities jeopardize the bonding of universal adhesive system. The bond strength of universal adhesive is similar, regardless to bonding strategy.

Effect of Protein-Based Treatment on Chemical Composition, Hardness and Bond Strength of Remineralized Enamel

“…1). The bonding to enamel should be a concern, since the stability of the resin-bonded dentin (18) and effectiveness of marginal sealing (19) depends on the bonding to surrounding enamel (20). Adherence results in the current study did not show statistically significant difference between the UE and ET groups.…”

Comparison of bond strength of universal adhesives using different etching modes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…The initial literature review identified records of 2,880 duplicates. In addition to 1,177 studies reviewed in the title and abstract, 45 studies were left to be read in full, 31 of them were not included, among them, 13 articles evaluate dentin micro-shear bond strength which was different from dentin micro-tensile bonding strength [38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50] .…”

Decision tree protocol for demineralized gingival margin extension in class II composite cavity preparations

“…As far as bonding strength, the most reliable bonding occurs in restorations where the margin is in enamel. 1 If the DGM is completely in enamel, the lesion should be removed ( Fig. 2 -(Ai,①)), but if DGM is close to CEJ ( Fig.…”

“…However, they are also one of the most common categories to experience failures, mainly due to weaker adhesion caused by dental enamel at the gingival margin. 1 One possible way to alleviate this problem is to address caries detection tools and apply them to treat the disease. Several studies have reported different approaches to detect carious tissue, such as red fluorescence, infrared transillumination, detecting dies, chemo-mechanical caries removal, self-limiting polymer burs, fluorescence cameras, optical coherence tomography, and lasers.…”