Aim: To compare and assess the shear bond strength of 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th generation dentin bonding agents in class V cavities.
Materials and methods: Freshly extracted 120 premolars were randomly divided into four different groups, that is, 4th generation (3MMultipurpose Scotchbond adhesive: Group 4G), 5th generation (Prime and Bond: Group 5G), 6th generation (Clearfil SE: Group 6G), and 7th generation (Tetric-N-Bond: Group 7G) dentin bonding agents. Class V cavities were prepared in all samples and dentin bonding agents were applied as per the manufacturer's instructions after placing a 26-gauge orthodontic wire at base of the cavity and cavities were then restored with composite resin. The cavities were then stored in distilled water for a period of 24 hours and the shear bond strength was evaluated after 24 hours using the Universal Instron strength testing machine. Statistical analysis was done using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc Tukey's test to compare the bond strength among four groups.
Results: Group 6G showed highest mean shear bond strength while the group 5G showed the lowest (p < 0.05). Scanning electron microscopic (SEM) results showed gap-free resin dentin interface and hybrid layer in group 6G while maximum gap was seen at the resin-dentin interface in group 5G.
Conclusion: Based on the data revealed, it appears that contemporary self-etching dentin bonding agent (6th generation) represented the highest bond strength and has a significant difference than other groups.
Clinical significance: Based on results of this study, we can select the bonding agent of high bond strength so as to improve the success of the restoration.
De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, et al. A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res 2005;84(2):118–132. DOI: 10.1177/154405910508400204
Mjör IA, Gordan VV. Failure, repair, refurbishing and longevity of restorations. Oper Dent 2002;27(5):528–534. PMID: 12216574.
Betancourt DE, Baldion PA, Castellanos JE. Resin-dentin bonding interface: mechanisms of degradation and strategies for stabilization of the hybrid layer. Int J Biomater 2019;2019:5268342. DOI: 10.1155/2019/5268342
Van Meerbeek B, Perdigão J, Lambrechts P, et al. The clinical performance of adhesives. J Dent 1998;26(1):1–20. DOI: 10.1016/s0300-5712(96)00070-x
Yaseen SM, Subba Reddy VV. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of two self-etching adhesives (sixth and seventh generation) on dentin of primary and permanent teeth: an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2009;27(1):33–38. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.50814
Agostini F, Kaaden C, Powers J. Bond strength of self-etching primers to enamel and dentin of primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 2001;23(6): 481–486. PMID: 11800447.
Al-Salehi SK, Burke FJ. Methods used in dentin bonding tests: an analysis of 50 investigations on bond strength. Quintessence Int 1997;28(11):717–723. PMID: 9573861.
DeHoff PH, Anusavice KJ, Wang Z. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the shear bond test. Dent Mater 1995;11(2):126–131. DOI: 10.1016/0109-5641(95)80047-6
Tagami J, Nikaido T, Nakajima M, et al. Relationship between bond strength tests and other in vitro phenomena. Dent Mater 2010;26(2):e94–e99. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.11.156
Sofan E, Sofan A, Palaia G, et al. Classification review of dental adhesive systems from the IV generation to the universal type. Ann Stomatol (Roma) 2017;8(1):1–17. DOI: 10.11138/ads/2017.8.1.001
Cheung GS. Reducing marginal leakage of posterior composite resin restorations: a review of clinical techniques. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63(3):286–288. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(90)90196-j
Naguchi H, Nakano N, Kumasaka A, et al. Evaluation of Japanese dental adhesives. J Dent Eng 1982;60:16.
Paul J, Chakravarthy Y, Kumar S, et al. Comparative evaluation of the bonding efficacy of sixth, seventh and eight generation bonding agents: an in vitro study. Int Res J Pharm 2013;4(9):143–147. DOI: 10.7897/2230-8407.04930
Zhao S, Chen J, Zhang B, et al. Nanoleakage at composite-dentin interface of self-etching adhesives. Kouqiang Yixue 2006;26:22–24. DOI: 10.2174/1874210601004010147
Meerbeek BV. Mechanisms of resin adhesion: dentin and enamel bonding. J Esthet Restor Dent 2008;2(1):2–8.
Van Meerbeek B, Van Landuyt K, De Munck J, et al. Bonding to enamel and dentin. In Summit JB, Robbins JW, Hilton TJ, Schwartz RS, editors, Fundamentals of Operative Dentistry: A Contemporary Approach 2006;3:184–260.
Das UM, Suma G. Bonding agents in pit and fissure sealants: a review. Int J Clin Pediat Dent 2009;2(3):1–6. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1011
Wang Y, Spencer P. Physiochemical interactions at the interfaces between self-etch adhesive systems and dentine. J Dent 2004;32(7):567–579. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2004.06.005
Pouyanfar H, Tabaii ES, Aghazadeh S, et al. Microtensile bond strength of composite to enamel using universal adhesive with/without acid etching compared to etch and rinse and self-etch bonding agents. J Med Sci 2018;6(11):2186–2192. DOI: 10.3889/oamjms.2018.427
Colombo M, Beltrami R, Chiesa M, et al. Shear bond strength of one-step self-etch adhesives to dentin: Evaluation of NaOCl pretreatment. J Clin Exp Dent 2018;10(2):127–133. DOI: 10.4317/jced.54552
Alex G. Adhesive considerations in the placement of direct composite restorations. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2008;1(8 Suppl):43–47. PMID: 14653938.
Tay FR, Pashly DH. Have dentin adhesives become too hydrophilic. Can Dent Assoc 2003;69(11):726–731.
Perdigão J, May Jr KN, Wilder Jr AD, et al. The effect of depth of dentin demineralization on bond strengths and morphology of the hybrid layer. Opera Dent 2000;25(3):186–194. PMID: 11203815.
Nair M, Paul J, Kumar S, et al. Comparative evaluation of the bonding efficacy of sixth and seventh generation bonding agents: an in vitro study. J Cons Dent 2014;17(1):27–30. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.124119