Cuspal deflection and cervical microleakage scores to determine the adhesive potential of universal bonding systems

A new universal simplified adhesive: 36-Month randomized double-blind clinical trial

“…SU is considered an ultra-mild adhesive because its pH is relatively high (pH 2.7). 64 More recently, significantly higher annual failure rates were recorded for strong 1-step SE adhesives (5.4%) than for mild 1-step SE adhesives (3.6%). 63 The improvement in retention rates for mild 1-step SE adhesives was corroborated in the present study, as only 5/40 restorations in the SE group were lost at 3 years, which corresponds to a cumulative annual failure rate of 3.8%.…”

Bulk fill restoratives: To cap or not to cap – That is the question?

“…Individual MOD cavities were prepared using a standardised protocol: cavosurface margins at 908 (rounded internal line angles); width of the proximal box (two-thirds the BPW); the occlusal isthmus (half the BPW); cavity depth at the occlusal isthmus (3.5 mm from the tip of the palatal cusp and 1 mm above the ACJ at the cervical aspect of the proximal boxes). [17][18][19][20][21][22] The prepared teeth were stored in high-purity double distilled water (23 AE 1 8C) and prepared for bonding with a one-step adhesive (Futurabond U SingleDose; Ref 1572, Lot 1418206; Voco GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany). 23 A SingleDose blister was activated, which allowed the liquid contained in the blister to flow into the mixing and dispensing chamber.…”

“…Each RBC increment (eight, three and two for restoration protocols 1, 2 and 3, respectively) was light irradiated for 20 s with the LCU tip maintained 2 mm above the cusp tips with deflection measurements recorded to 180 s post-irradiation after which no cuspal recoil of the buccal and palatal cusp deflections was assumed to occur. [17][18][19][20][21][22] The sum of the buccal and palatal cusp deflection measurements were calculated for each respective group -depending on the restoration protocol employed. Statistically significant differences in mean total cuspal deflection measurements between groups ( p < 0.05) were determined using one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) with Independent Samples t-test and post hoc Tukey's tests with SPSS Statistics V22.0 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).…”

“…A score of '0' was indicative of no evidence of dye penetration; '1' was indicated by superficial dye penetration not beyond the ADJ; '2' was indicated by dye penetration along the gingival floor and up to the axial wall; '3' was indicated by dye penetration along the axial wall and across the pulpal floor and '4' was indicated by dye penetration into the pulp chamber from the pulpal floor. [17][18][19][20][21][22] Nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis tests followed by paired MannWhitney U tests group comparisons ( p < 0.05) were assessed to determine statistically significant differences in cervical microleakage scores using the SPSS software. 24 …”

Bonding of universal adhesives to dentine – Old wine in new bottles?

“…13 This increase in adhesive permeability is more severe for simplified one-step self-etch adhesives when compared to the two-step counterparts, with the latter incorporating a comparatively hydrophobic resin coating to cover the primed dentin surface. 14 Because universal adhesives are marketed in fairly short order, [15][16][17][18] relatively little information is available on their performance apart from those provided by the manufacturers, especially for the more recently introduced versions. As far as bonding to dentin is concerned, it is not known if equivalent bonding performance may be expected when these adhesives are used in either application mode, or whether this latest generation of adhesives has overcome some of the aforementioned critical barriers associated with contemporary dentin bonding.…”