World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 8 , ISSUE 5 ( September-October, 2017 ) > List of Articles


Bond Strength of Self-etching Adhesives Applied to Different Substrates

Milton C Kuga, Mateus R Tonetto, Cinthia S Kubo, Mayra ARV Piccioni

Citation Information : Kuga MC, Tonetto MR, S Kubo C, ARV Piccioni M. Bond Strength of Self-etching Adhesives Applied to Different Substrates. World J Dent 2017; 8 (5):358-363.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1465

License: CC BY-SA 4.0

Published Online: 01-02-2018

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2017; The Author(s).


Aim: To evaluate the microshear bond strength and adhesive interface using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) of selfetching adhesive systems on normal and artificially hypermineralized dentin substrates. Materials and methods: A total of 65 (n = 65) bovine incisors were divided into two groups according to dentin type: Normal (n = 28) and artificially hypermineralized (n = 29). Composite resin cylinders were placed on these surfaces and cured (3M™ ESPE™ Filtek™ Z350 XT). Each group was divided into four subgroups (n = 7) according to the self-etching adhesive systems used (Clearfil SE Bond, AdheSE®, Adper™ Easy One, and OptiBond™ All-In-One™), and microshear bond tests were performed. In addition, one specimen from each group was prepared for an evaluation of the adhesive interface under a microscope (×2000 magnification). The differences between the groups were determined using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s test (p < 0.05). Results: For normal dentin, the microshear bond strength values in MPa were as follows: Clearfil = 15.65; AdheSE = 14.71; Easy One = 21.92; and OptiBond = 28.43. For hypermineralized dentin, the values were as follows: Clearfil = 20.96; AdheSE =17.23; a nd O ptiBond = 2 3.29. T here were n o s ignificant differences between any of the adhesives used (p > 0.05). When adhesion, dentin, and interaction were treated as factors and analyzed, a significant difference was found only in the case of the adhesive (p = 0.0002). Conclusion: Self-etching adhesive systems with higher degrees of acidity do not necessarily exhibit greater microshear bond strength in hypermineralized teeth. Clinical significance: It is important to obtain bond strength values to analyze the possible clinical performance of the adhesive systems. Furthermore, information on their interactions with different types of dentin substrates proved complementary and useful in the study performed herein.

PDF Share
  1. Sato K, Hosaka K, Takahashi M, Ikeda M, Tian F, Komada W,Nakajima M, Foxton R, Nishitani Y, Pashley DH, et al. Dentin bonding durability of two-step self-etch adhesives with improved of degree of conversion of adhesive resins. J Adhes Dent 2017 Feb;19(1):31-37
  2. Bond strength of composite to dentin using conventional,one-step, and self-etching adhesive systems. J Dent 2001 Jan;29(1):55-61
  3. Regional strengths of bonding agents to cervical sclerotic root dentin. J Dent Res 1996 Jun;75(6):1404-1413
  4. Bond strengths of three different dentin adhesive systems to sclerotic dentin. Dent Mater J 2008 May;27(3):471-479
  5. An ultrastructural study of the application of dentine adhesives to acidconditioned sclerotic dentine. J Dent 2000 Sep;28(7):515-528
  6. A prospective 8-year evaluation of a mild two-step self-etching adhesive and a heavily filled two-step etch-and-rinse system in non-carious cervical lesions. Dent Mater 2010 Sep;26(9):940-946
  7. Morphological characterization of the interface between resin and sclerotic dentine. J Dent 1994 Jun;22(3):141-146
  8. Modifications of the organic and mineral fractions of dental tissues following conditioning by self-etching adhesives. J Dent 2011 Feb;39(2):141-147
  9. Micromorphological effects and the thickness of the hybrid layer-a comparison of current adhesive systems. J Adhes Dent 2010 Dec;12(6):435-442
  10. Adhesive bonding of various materials to hard tooth tissues. II. Bonding to dentin promoted by a surfaceactive comonomer. J Dent Res 1965 Sep-Oct;44(5):895-902
  11. Effect of surface treatments on the bond strength of selfetching adhesive agents to dentin. Gen Dent 2017Jul-Aug;65(4):e1-e6
  12. Evaluating a method of artificially hypermineralizing dentin to simulate natural conditions in bonding studies. J Adhes Dent 2005 Winter;7(4):271-279
  13. In vitro bond strengths and SEM evaluation of dentin bonding systems to different dentin substrates. J Dent Res 1994 Jan;73(1):44-55
  14. Water sorption/solubility of self-etching dentin bonding agents. Dent Mater 2010 Jul;26(7):617-626
  15. Dentin bonding agents and the smear layer. Oper Dent 1991 Sep-Oct;16(5):186-191
  16. ; Pashley, DH. Hybridization of dental hard tissues. Georgia: Quintessence; 1998
  17. The importance of adhesive area delimitation in a microshear bond strength experimental design. J Adhes Dent 2011 Aug;13(4):307-314
  18. Physiochemical interactions at the interfaces between self-etch adhesive systems and dentine. J Dent2004 Sep;32(7):567-579
  19. Bonding durability of photocured phenyl-P in TEGDMA to smear layer-retained bovine dentin. Quintessence Int 1993 May;24(5):335-342
  20. Comparison of two all-in-one adhesives bonded to non-carious cervical lesions–results at 3 years. Clin Oral Investig 2012 Aug;16(4):1089-1094
  21. Have dentin adhesives become too hydrophilic? J Can Dent Assoc 2003 Dec;69(11):726-731
  22. Influence of etching ability of one-step self-etch adhesives on bonding to sound and non-carious cervical sclerotic dentin. Dent Mater J 2011 Nov;30(6):941-947.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.