Effect of EDTA and Phosphoric Acid Pretreatment on the Bonding Effectiveness of Self-Etch Adhesives to Ground Enamel

Ibrahim, Ihab M.; Elkassas, Dina; Yousry, Mai Mahmoud

doi:10.1055/s-0039-1697862

Cited by 15 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Authors such as Rotta et al, Ibrahim et al argued that the pH of the acidic monomer embedded in the SEA might influence SBS results [9,21]. Therefore, Ibrahim et al found that intermediary strong SEA produced higher SBS values than mild and strong SEA [9]. However, their results do not agree with the present study, which found better SBS with the most acidic adhesive and that intermediary strength adhesives produced the lowest SBS values.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 67%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some authors proposed performing a mixed technique using a SEA on both substrates but pre-etching the enamel with phosphoric acid to improve adhesion on this surface [7,8]. Self-etching adhesives are subdivided into three groups based upon their primer pH: strong adhesives (with a pH of 1 or below), intermediary adhesives (with a pH of approximately 1.5), and mild adhesives (with a pH of 2 or more) [9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Effect of Dental Enamel Pre-Etching for Self-Etching Adhesives According to their Primer pH: An In Vitro Bond Strength, Etching Pattern and Adhesive Failure Evaluation

Nicolás-Silvente¹,

Chiva-García²,

Sánchez-Pérez³

2020

JDOA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dental enamel pre-etching before the application of a self-etching adhesive (SEA) has different effects depending on the pH of the adhesive acidic monomer, being not always beneficial. This study aimed to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS), etching pattern, and fracture type of different acidity SEAs, with and without previous phosphoric acid etching. One-hundred-sixty bovine incisors were subjected to SBS testing with the following adhesive systems: Adper-Prompt-L-Pop (APLP) (strong acidity), Futurabond NR (FB), AdheSE One F (AD) (intermediary acidity) and Clearfil SE (CSE) (mild acidity), with and without previous phosphoric acid etching. Results were evaluated applying both ANOVA and Tukey’s test. Besides, forty bovine incisors were used to assess etching patterns using scanning-electron-microscopy (SEM). Adhesive failure was evaluated, classifying bond failure as one of five types. SBS averages were (MPa): without pre-etching: APLP (20.61±11.84), CSE (17.29±10.16), FB (11.44±6.99), AD (7.88±4.85) and with pre-etching: APLP (16.17±9.68), CSE (25.96±11.75), FB (20.12±9.39), AD (14,28±9.42). Different enamel etching patterns were observed depending on each SEA’s pH and whether the surface was pre-etched. Most fracture failures were adhesive type. Less than 10 % were cohesive type. SBS improves when mild and intermediary strength SEAs are pre-etched. However, it decreases when strong SEAs are pre-etched.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 67%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Effect of Dental Enamel Pre-Etching for Self-Etching Adhesives According to their Primer pH: An In Vitro Bond Strength, Etching Pattern and Adhesive Failure Evaluation

Nicolás-Silvente¹,

Chiva-García²,

Sánchez-Pérez³

2020

JDOA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[22] Samples were then prepared and examined on SEM as described above at ×2000. The enamel surface was classified by an experienced investigator, according to Cehreli and Altay[23] in:…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shear bond strength and SEM morphology evaluation of different dental adhesives to enamel prepared with ER:YAG laser

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context:Early observations of enamel surfaces prepared by erbium lasers motivated clinicians to use laser as an alternative to chemical etching.Aims:Evaluate shear bond strength (SBS) values of different dental adhesives on Erbium:Yttrium Aluminum Garnet (Er:YAG) laser prepared enamel and to evaluate possible etching patterns correlations between dental adhesives and SBS values.Subjects and Methods:One hundred bovine incisors were randomly assigned to SBS tests on enamel (n = 15) and to enamel morphology analysis (n = 5) after Er:YAG laser preparation as follows: Group I – 37% phosphoric acid (PA)+ ExciTE®; Group II – ExciTE®; Group III – AdheSE® self-etching; Group IV – FuturaBond® no-rinse. NR; Group V – Xeno® V. Teeth were treated with the adhesive systems and subjected to thermal cycling. SBS were performed in a universal testing machine at 5 mm/min.Statistical Analysis Used:One-way ANOVA and post-hoc tests (P < 0.05). For the morphology evaluation, specimens were immersed in Ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA) and the etching pattern analyzed under Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM).Results:Mean bond strengths were Group I – 47.17 ± 1.61 MPa (type I etching pattern); Group II – 32.56 ± 1.64 MPa, Group III – 29.10 ± 1.34 MPa, Group IV – 23.32 ± 1.53 MPa (type III etching pattern); Group V – 24.43 MPa ± 1.55 (type II etching pattern).Conclusions:Different adhesive systems yielded significantly different SBSs. Acid etching significantly increased the adhesion in laser treated enamel. No differences in SBS values were obtained between AdheSE® and ExciTE® without condition with PA. FuturaBond® NR and Xeno® V showed similar SBS, which was lower in comparison to the others adhesives. No correlation between enamel surface morphology and SBS values was observed, except when PA was used.

show abstract

“…[4][5][6] Therefore, enamel surface pretreatment needs to be improved to maintain clinically useful bond strengths while minimizing enamel loss; enamel surface pretreatment also needs to be simplified to reduce the bonding steps. 7,8 Various lasers have recently elicited considerable interest in the field of dentistry because of their function in the detection and removal of enamel caries, diagnosis of dental caries, cavity preparation, etching of teeth for resin bonding, demineralization prevention, root canal sterilization, and so on. [9][10][11] Lasers have received significant attention in resin bonding, especially in terms of their roughness and demineralization prevention effect on dental hard tissues.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Pulsed Nd:YAG Laser on Tensile Bond Strength and Caries Resistance of Human Enamel

Wen

Zhang

Liu

et al. 2014

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to evaluate the effects of pulsed Nd:YAG laser on the tensile bond strength (TBS) of resin to human enamel and caries resistance of human enamel. A total of 201 human premolars were used in this in vitro study. A flat enamel surface greater than 4 × 4 mm in area was prepared on each specimen using a low-speed cutting machine under a water coolant. Twenty-one specimens were divided into seven groups for morphology observations with no treatment, 35% phosphoric acid etching (30 seconds), and laser irradiation (30 seconds) of pulsed Nd:YAG laser with five different laser-parameter combinations. Another 100 specimens were used for TBS testing. They were embedded in self-cured acrylic resin and randomly divided into 10 groups. After enamel surface pretreatments according to the group design, resin was applied. The TBS values were tested using a universal testing machine. The other 80 specimens were randomly divided into eight groups for acid resistance evaluation. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) results showed that the enamel surfaces treated with 1.5 W/20 Hz and 2.0 W/20 Hz showed more etching-like appearance than those with other laser-parameter combinations. The laser-parameter combinations of 1.5 W/15 Hz and 1.5 W/20 Hz were found to be efficient for the TBS test. The mean TBS value of 14.45 ± 1.67 MPa in the laser irradiated group was significantly higher than that in the untreated group (3.48 ± 0.35 MPa) but lower than that in the 35% phosphoric acid group (21.50 ± 3.02 MPa). The highest mean TBS value of 26.64 ± 5.22 MPa was identified in the combination group (laser irradiation and then acid etching). Acid resistance evaluation showed that the pulsed Nd:YAG laser was efficient in preventing enamel demineralization. The SEM results of the fractured enamel surfaces, resin/enamel interfaces, and demineralization depths were consistent with those of the TBS test and the acid resistance evaluation. Pulsed Nd:YAG laser as an enamel surface pretreatment method presents a potential clinical application, especially for the caries-susceptible population or individuals with recently bleached teeth.

show abstract

Effect of EDTA and Phosphoric Acid Pretreatment on the Bonding Effectiveness of Self-Etch Adhesives to Ground Enamel

Cited by 15 publications

References 23 publications

The Effect of Dental Enamel Pre-Etching for Self-Etching Adhesives According to their Primer pH: An In Vitro Bond Strength, Etching Pattern and Adhesive Failure Evaluation

The Effect of Dental Enamel Pre-Etching for Self-Etching Adhesives According to their Primer pH: An In Vitro Bond Strength, Etching Pattern and Adhesive Failure Evaluation

Shear bond strength and SEM morphology evaluation of different dental adhesives to enamel prepared with ER:YAG laser

Effects of Pulsed Nd:YAG Laser on Tensile Bond Strength and Caries Resistance of Human Enamel

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About