Effect of a bonding resin layer associated with a self-etching adhesive system on the bond strength of indirect restorations

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of a low-viscosity bonding resin applied over a self-etching adhesive system on the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of indirect restorations. Comparisons were made using One Up Bond F (OB) self-etching adhesive system, Single Bond (SB) one-bottle adhesive system and Scotchbond Multi Purpose Plus (SMP) bonding component. Thirty bovine incisors were extracted and decoronated at the cementoenamel junction. The labial surfaces were ground so that superficial dentin and deep dentin were exposed. The specimens were randomized to three groups (n=10): G1- OB; G2- OB + SMP; G3- SB. In G2, a layer of the SMP bonding was applied over the OB adhesive system. Indirect composite restorations were bonded using dual-cure cement under 500 g load for 5 min. The specimens were serially sectioned with a bonding area of ± 1.0 mm2 in 3 regions: enamel (E), superficial dentin (SD) and deep dentin (DD). The sticks were fixed with cyanoacrylate adhesive and submitted to μTBS test at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min in a mechanical testing machine (EMIC DL 2000). The fractured specimens were examined under scanning electron microscopy to determine the failure mode. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's test (p<0.05). μTBS means (in MPa) were: G1/E: 15.5 ± 3.5b; G1/SD: 22.7 ± 7.6a; G1/DD: 19.4 ± 9.4a; G2/E: 15.9 ± 5.8b; G2/SD: 19.9 ± 6.9a; G2/DD: 15.3 ± 4.9a; G3/E: 23.2 ± 7.3a; G3/SD: 20.4 ± 8.2a; G3/DD: 19.1 ± 8.7a. The results showed that the use of a low viscosity bonding resin did not affect the μTBS means when associated with a self-etching adhesive system. The self-etching adhesive system was significantly more efficient in dentin than in enamel, while the one-bottle system was significantly more efficient in enamel when compared to the self-etching adhesive system.

Tensile bond strength of indirect composites luted with three new self-adhesive resin cements to dentin

“…Some of the limitations of the self-etch adhesive tested include the following: no capability for dual polymerization, which can be desirable for indirect adhesive restorations, and difficulty in preventing the acid resin from splashing onto adjacent teeth or soft tissue during air-drying. Castro, et al 7 (2007) concluded that the self-etch adhesive system was significantly more efficient in dentin than in enamel, while the one-bottle system was significantly more efficient in enamel when compared to the self-etch adhesive system.…”

Comparative Evaluation of Bond Strength of Self-Etching and Total Etch Dental Adhesive Systems to Dentin of Deciduous and Permanent Teeth

“…Furthermore, peritubular dentin has been reported up to five times thinner in DT which leads to lower moisture (Mazzeo et al;Prabhakar et al, 2003;Stanlin et al, 2005;Cavalcanti et al, 2008;Chowdahary & Subba Reddy), as well as greater reactivity to acid conditioning (Nör et al, 1996). The stable adhesion between resin and dentin represents a fundamental requirement for clinical success and it depends on the proper interaction between the dental substrate, the adhesive system and the restoration (Castro et al, 2007). In agreement with García-Godoy & Donly (2002), a minimum bonding force of 17-20 MPa is necessary to withstand the contraction force of the composite resin in the enamel and dentin Therefore, the purpose of this research was to compare the bonding strength of total etch and self-etch adhesive systems on primary deciduous teeth as well as on permanent teeth.…”