The effect of the air-blowing step on the technique sensitivity of four different adhesive systems

Abstract

KEYWORDSMicrotensile bond strength; Adhesion; Self-etching; All-in-one adhesives; Failure mode; Technique sensitivity Summary Purpose: To evaluate the technique sensitivity of four different adhesive systems using different air-blowing pressure. . Twenty-four extracted molars were used. After grinding the coronal enamel surface, the teeth were divided into two equal groups. The first group's teeth were randomly assigned for bonding with the different adhesives using gentle air-blowing (g). For the teeth of the second group, the four adhesive systems were applied using strong air-blowing (s). After storage overnight in 37 8C water, the bonded specimens were sectioned into sticks (1 mm! 1 mm wide), which were subjected to microtensile bond strength testing (mTBS) at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The load at failure of each specimen was recorded and the data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests. The surfaces of the fractured specimens were observed using SEM to determine the failure mode. Results: The results of the mTBS test showed that the highest bond strengths tended to be with SE for both gentle and strong air-blowing, and the significantly lowest for SSB with strong air streaming. Comparing the two techniques, significant differences were noted only for SSB-200 (P!0.05). For each material, the SEM evaluation did not show distinct differences in the nature of the fractures between the two techniques, except for SSB-200. Conclusions: The adhesives tested are not technique sensitive, except SSB-200, with regards to the air-blowing step. Q

Two-year clinical evaluation of one-step self-etch systems in non-carious cervical lesions

“…10,11,20,21) Water is essential in one-step self-etching systems to ionize acidic monomer enough to dissolve the smear layer and demineralize dentin.…”

“…10,11,20,21) One-year results of other clinical trials using newly developed one-step self-etch systems showed almost no marginal staining. 3,4) In the present study, enamel beveling and delayed polishing were employed according to the results of our previous laboratory studies, in which significant improvements of marginal sealing of self-etch adhesive systems were demonstrated.…”

“…1) In order to address this problem, several newer one-step self-etch systems with a relatively thin adhesive layer were, approximately 10 μm, developed a few years ago. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Introduction of a new technology and/or modification of a photoinitiator are used in these adhesive systems, and most of them are provided as a real one-bottle system. Comparison of the latest and the earliest versions of one-step self-etch systems from the same manufacturers showed a significant improvement of bond strengths and marginal sealing.…”

“…5,6) In addition, many studies have indicated that the newly developed one-step self-etch systems demonstrate comparable laboratory bond strengths to those of the two-step self etch systems. [7][8][9][10][11] Therefore, newer one-step self-etch systems would be expected to demonstrate good clinical performance. However, sufficient information about their clinical performance, which can provide the ultimate proof of clinical effectiveness, has not been available.…”

Effects of One-year Storage in Water on Bond Strength of Self-etching Adhesives to Enamel and Dentin

“…This was in line with other studies that suggested higher dentin bond strength with SE than with TS in short-term observation. This could be attributed to the lower mechanical properties of TS due to a lower polymerization efficacy, which was a result of incomplete removal of water and solvents 7,11) . Similarly for PB, it was suggested that the absence of photoinitiator in its primer led to a lower polymerization efficacy of the bonding layer 12) .…”