Microtensile bond strength of universal adhesives to flat versus Class I cavity dentin with pulpal pressure simulation

Zebic, Maja Lezaja; Dzeletovic, Bojan; Miletić, Vesna

doi:10.1111/jerd.12363

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For ABU, however, the ER strategy resulted in higher bond strengths although considerable heterogeneity was noted among the included studies . Contrastingly, studies utilizing artificial‐aging for testing dentin bond durability of UAs concluded that the SE strategy resulted in more stable long‐term bond characteristics . Studies have attributed this to the stable chemical bonding produced by 10‐MDP .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Universal dental adhesives: Current status, laboratory testing, and clinical performance

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasing demand for simplified and user-friendly adhesive systems has led to the development of a new class of adhesives termed as Universal Adhesives (UAs). The term "Universal" reflects manufacturers' claims that these adhesives can be applied with any adhesion strategy and offer the versatility of use with a variety of direct and indirect restorative materials. The aim of this review was to synthesize the literature regarding the current status of UAs, their adhesion potential to various substrates and their performance in different restorative situations. In vitro studies, clinical trials and systematic reviews were identified utilizing controlled vocabulary and keyword searches in Medline and EMBASE databases. About 282 studies (272 in vitro studies; 11 clinical studies) were included. Available laboratory and clinical evidence does not support the claim that UAs can be used with any adhesive strategy. Although, they can chemically bond to various tooth and direct/indirect restorative substrates, the stability of this bond is material-dependent and subject to hydrolytic degradation. Hence, additional measures are still needed to ensure long-term durability. which undermines the versatility of UAs. The lack of long-term data regarding the clinical performance of UAs further complicates clinical decision-making.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Universal dental adhesives: Current status, laboratory testing, and clinical performance

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Simulated pulpal pressure and Class 1 preparation may be recommended for adhesive strength tests. The values obtained were in the range of 19-42 MPa initially and 16-36 MPa after 6 months storage 28 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Universal adhesives applied to deep dentin with different bonding treatments

Mirotti¹,

Lutri²,

Kraemer³

et al. 2022

AOL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eighth-generation adhesives may be applied with total etch, selective-etch or self-conditioning, and serve as primers for non-dental substrates. Aim: To determine the bonding characteristics of universal adhesives applied to the deep pulp wall with different strategies, by means of shear bond strength and laser microscopy. Materials and Method: Cavities 4 mm deep and maximum width were carved in 36 extracted molars. Nine groups were formed according to dental substrate treatment and adhesives, as follows: Total-etch: group 1-Monobond 7 self-etch, group 2-One coat 7 universal, and group 3-Single bond universal; Adamantine etch: group 4-Monobond 7 self-etch, group 5-One coat 7 universal, and group 6-Single bond universal; Self-conditioning: group 7-Monobond 7 self-etch, group 8-One coat 7 universal, and group 9-Single bond universal. Molars were filled following the manufacturer’s instructions. Three specimens per group (27 altogether) were used to determine shear bond strength using a universal testing machine, while layer thicknesses were measured on the remaining specimens using microscope images and Olympus LEXT 3D Software. Analysis of variance was used to compare data. Results: Mean (standard deviation) bond strength in megapascals (MPa) was: group 1: 7.06±3.01; group 2: 10.74±4.36; group 3: 8.20±3.92; group 4: 7.41±2.23; group 5: 6.84±1.50; group 6: 5.86±2.10; group 7: 5.83±1.94; group 8: 7.14±2.37; group 9: 8.06±3.51. Bond strength was higher (p=0.049) for total-etch (8.61±3.96) than for selective etch (6.71±1.98) and self-conditioning (6.91±2.68). No significant difference was found among the three adhesives (p=0.205). Adhesive layer in micrometers (μm) was total-etch 8.71±4.93, selective etch 5.49±1.70 and self-conditioning 6.27±3.01, with no significant difference. Conclusions: There were significant differences among bonding strategies, with the highest values for total-etch. No significant difference was observed between self-conditioning and selective etch. No significant difference was found among the adhesives, which all behaved similarly. The greatest adhesive layer thicknesses were recorded in the total-etch group, with no significant difference among the various adhesive approaches. Keywords: dentin bonding agents - microscopy confocal

show abstract

“…4,23 Nevertheless, when adhesive interfaces were subjected to aging processes, several studies concluded that the self-etch approach resulted in more stable long-term bond characteristics. 6,9,24 One meta-analysis of in vitro studies that evaluated nanoleakage related to universal adhesives reported divergent results and highlighted that etching modes influenced significantly and dissimilarly the nanoleakage of universal adhesives. Namely, the etch-and-rinse technique significantly reduced the nanoleakage of the Peak Universal and G-Bond Plus adhesives, whereas the self-etch mode reduced the nanoleakage of All-Bond Universal.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bonding performance of a universal adhesive: effect of hydrophobic resin coating and long-term water storage

Vinagre¹,

Ralho²,

Ramos³

et al. 2019

j.rpemd

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To evaluate the immediate and water-aged microtensile bond strength of a universal adhesive to dentin, using the self-etch approach with and without an additional hydrophobic resin layer. Methods: Flat dentin surfaces were prepared from twelve non-carious human molars and were randomly divided into two groups. The universal adhesive system Scotchbond™ Universal was used in self-etch mode (SBU) with and without the application of an extra hydrophobic resin layer of Adper™ Scotchbond™ MultiPurpose Plus (SBU+HL). After composite buildups, samples were stored in water (37ºC/7 days) and then sectioned into microspecimens (1.00±0.2 mm 2). Half of the microspecimens were immediately subjected to microtensile bond strength testing (0.5 mm/min) while the other half was stored in water, according to the ISO/TS 11405:2015, for 4 years before testing. Data were analyzed with Kruskal Wallis and all-pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni corrections (p<0.05). Results: The following microtensile bond strengths were registered (mean in MPa±SD): immediate SBU, 52.5±13.56; 4-year SBU, 26.0±6.50; immediate SBU+HL, 59.3±12.39; 4-year SBU+HL, 32.5±5.72. No statistically significant differences were detected between adhesive strategies either immediately or in the aged period (p>0.05). A significant decrease in bond strength was verified between the immediate and the 4-year evaluation for both groups (p<0.05). Conclusions: Water storage induced an approximately 50% reduction in dentin bond strength, regardless of the adhesive strategy employed. The incorporation of an extra hydrophobic layer over the universal adhesive did not improve dentin bond strength significantly either immediately or after long-term water storage. (Rev Port Estomatol Med Dent Cir Maxilofac.

show abstract

Microtensile bond strength of universal adhesives to flat versus Class I cavity dentin with pulpal pressure simulation

Cited by 10 publications

References 36 publications

Universal dental adhesives: Current status, laboratory testing, and clinical performance

Universal dental adhesives: Current status, laboratory testing, and clinical performance

Universal adhesives applied to deep dentin with different bonding treatments

Bonding performance of a universal adhesive: effect of hydrophobic resin coating and long-term water storage

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About