Initial and long-term bond strengths of one-step self-etch adhesives with silane coupling agent to enamel-dentin-composite in combined situation

Abstract

This study evaluated the effect of adding silane coupling agent on initial and long-term bond strengths of one-step self-etch adhesives to enamel-dentin-composite in combined situation. Cervical cavities were prepared on extracted molars and filled with Clearfil AP-X. After water-storage for one-week, the filled teeth were sectioned in halves to expose enamel, dentin and composite surfaces and then enamel-dentin-composite surface was totally applied with one of adhesive treatments (Clearfil SE One, Clearfil SE One with Clearfil Porcelain Bond Activator, Beautibond Multi, Beautibond Multi with Beautibond Multi PR Plus and Scotchbond Universal). After designed period, micro-shear bond strengths (µSBSs) to each substrate were determined. For each period of water-storage, additive silane treatments significantly increased µSBS to composite (p<0.001). On the other hand, they significantly decreased µSBS to dentin (p<0.001), although did not have adverse effect on µSBS to enamel (p>0.05). Moreover, the stability of µSBS was depended on materials and substrates used.

Bonding Strength of Universal Adhesives to Indirect Substrates: A Meta‐Analysis of in Vitro Studies

“…Of these studies, 6 were not included in the qualitative analysis: 2 studies did not use any experimental group with the use of a universal adhesive alone, 19,20 and 4 studies did not evaluate the bond strength with the use of composite or resin cement 21‐24 . Of the remaining 45 studies, 3 were excluded from the quantitative analysis because the mean and standard deviation could not be retrieved 25‐27 . Only 42 studies (0.0061%) were considered adequate for the meta‐analysis, since most of the retrieved studies did not evaluate bond strength comparing a universal adhesive with a well‐established material‐specific primer, which was the goal of this systematic review.…”

“…Seven different indirect substrates were considered in this review. These included lithium disilicate ceramic, 20,22,23,25,28‐39 yttrium‐stabilized zirconium dioxide ceramic, 20 ‐22, 24,27,32,37,40‐53 leucite‐reinforced ceramic, 20,54‐56 feldspathic porcelain, 32,59 polymer infiltrated ceramic material, 19,58 resin composite, 20,26,29,57,59‐66 and metal alloys 67–69 . The characteristics of these studies are summarized in Table 2.…”

The effect of five kinds of surface treatment agents on the bond strength to various ceramics with thermocycle aging

“…For SO and SU, water incorporated in HEMA does not completely evaporate and residual water and HEMA molecules might have interfered with siloxane bond formation and rendered the resin cement/ ceramic bond susceptible to hydrolytic degradation after long-term water storage 27) . Additionally, the high hydrophilic properties of one-step self-etch adhesives results in increased water sorption over time 33) , which decreases the mechanical properties of the adhesive polymers 34) and degrades bonding stability to restorative materials as well as tooth substrates 35) . In this study with thermocycle aging, the bond strengths with any of the surface treatments to all the ceramic materials significantly decreased after 5,000 themocycles, except for the PB group to Lava.…”

Influence of commercial adhesive with/without silane on the bond strength of resin-based composite repaired within twenty-four hours

“…These results are in accordance with Mamanee et al.’s report. 40 As mentioned earlier, one of the two functional groups in silane, the organofunctional group, binds to methacrylate part in the adhesive and unpolymerized monomers, and the other one, hydroxyl group, binds with the exposed filler. Except the binding force gained from adhesive to the monomer of the previous RBC, the chemical reaction of silane with both of the exposed filler and adhesive that induces an increasing μTBS and leads to a reinforcing effect on RBC repair.…”