Interfacial and surface characterization of two self-etching adhesive systems and a total-etch adhesive after bonding to ground and unground bovine enamel—a qualitative study

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the enamel surface and interface morphology of two self-etching adhesive systems (SAS) vs a total-etch control, after bonding to ground and unground enamel using field emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM). Thirty bovine incisors were used in this study. The buccal enamel surface of 15 teeth was ground flat to resemble freshly cut enamel. The rest of the teeth were left intact. Two SAS, Clearfil SE Bond (CSE, Kuraray) and Prompt L-Pop (3M-ESPE), and a conventional adhesive system, Scotchbond Multipurpose (3M-ESPE, control), were used to condition the surface of unground and ground enamel on 12 teeth. A composite button was bonded to the remaining 18 teeth; a cross-section (1 mm thick) was obtained from each and the bonded interface was polished. All specimens were dehydrated in ascending grades of ethanol, gold-sputter-coated, and observed under FESEM (Hitachi S-4000) to evaluate the ultrastructural morphology of the enamel surface and the enamel-dentin interface. The etching patterns and adhesive penetration varied according to the aggressiveness of the SAS, with CSE being the mildest and H3PO4 being the most aggressive. There were no significant differences on the ultrastructural morphology of the enamel surface between unground and ground specimens. It appears that microporosities within enamel prisms provide sufficient enamel-resin hybridization in unground enamel. The enamel dissolution pattern and depth of infiltration depend on the type of SAS used, with no significant differences in unground and ground enamel.

Enamel colour changes after debonding using various bonding systems

“…3 Relevant data indicate that the depth of the resin tag penetration increases when the enamel is etched with 35% phosphoric acid than when enamel is conditioned with self-etching primers. [8][9][10][11][12] The present study was undertaken to test the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the colour change of enamel after finishing following the removal of brackets bonded by different bonding protocols. The association between colour change and lengths of remnant resin tags was also investigated.…”

Evaluation of pit‐and‐fissure sealants placed with four different bonding protocols: a randomized clinical trial

“…This property has shown to result in reduced degradation of mechanical properties during water storage, thus resulting in no significant reduction in the bond strength of the adhesive over time. The superior performance of etch‐and‐rinse adhesive is due to formation of longer microresin tags within enamel, resulting in a scalloped interface which in turn makes it more resistant to crack propagation and hence better retention of the sealant; however, in this study, the retention of the sealant in etch‐and‐rinse group was significantly higher only at a short‐term follow‐up (3 months). Thus, in spite of better bonding mechanism, there was loss of bonding over time, due to exposure to masticatory and thermal stresses.…”

Bond strength of one-step self-etch adhesives and their predecessors to ground versus unground enamel

“…In a recent study, it was concluded that pH is not the only parameter necessary for achieving a good bond. 32 Ibarra et al 33 evaluated the enamel surface and interface morphology of self-etch and etch-and-rinse adhesives after bonding to ground and unground enamel. They did not observe large differences between ground and unground enamel surfaces either in their surface etching effect or in the ultrastructural morphology of the adhesive interface.…”