Enamel adhesion of light- and chemical-cured composites coupled by two step self-etch adhesives

Article information

Restor Dent Endod. 2007;32(3):169-179

Publication date (electronic) : 2007 May 31

doi : https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2007.32.3.169

Sae-Hee Han ¹, Eun-Soung Kim ², Young-Gon Cho ²

¹Dental Center, Chung Ang University Hospital, Korea.

²Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Chosun University, Korea.

Corresponding Author: Young-Gon Cho. Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Chosun University, 421 Seosuk-dong, Dong-gu, Gwangju, Korea, 501-825. Tel: 82-62-220-3840, 3845, Fax: 82-62-232-9064, ygcho@chosun.ac.kr

Received 2007 January 03; Revised 2007 March 07; Accepted 2007 March 15.

Abstract

This study was to compare the microshear bond strength (µSBS) of light- and chemically cured composites to enamel coupled with four 2-step self-etch adhesives and also to evaluate the incompatibility between 2-step self-etch adhesives and chemically cured composite resin.

Crown segments of extracted human molars were cut mesiodistally, and a 1 mm thickness of specimen was made. They were assigned to four groups by adhesives used: SE group (Clearfil SE Bond), AdheSE group (AdheSE), Tyrian group (Tyrian SPE/One-Step Plus), and Contax group (Contax). Each adhesive was applied to a cut enamel surface as per the manufacturer's instruction. Light-cured (Filtek Z250) or chemically cured composite (Luxacore Smartmix Dual) was bonded to the enamel of each specimen using a Tygon tube. After storage in distilled water for 24 hours, the bonded specimens were subjected to µSBS testing with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/minute. The mean µSBS (n=20 for each group) was statistically compared using two-way ANOVA, Tukey HSD, and t test at 95% level. Also the interface of enamel and composite was evaluated under FE-SEM.

The results of this study were as follows;

1. The µSBS of the SE Bond group to the enamel was significantly higher than that of the AdheSE group, the Tyrian group, and the Contax group in both the light-cured and the chemically cured composite resin (p < 0.05).

2. There was not a significant difference among the AdheSE group, the Tyrian group, and the Contax group in both the light-cured and the chemically cured composite resin.

3. The µSBS of the light-cured composite resin was significantly higher than that of the chemically cured composite resin when same adhesive was applied to the enamel (p < 0.05).

4. The interface of enamel and all 2-step self-etch adhesives showed close adaptation, and so the incompatibility of the chemically cured composite resin did not show.

Keywords: Microshear bond strength; Self-etch adhesives; Incompatibility; Chemical-cured composites

References

1. Bouillaguet S, Gysi P, Wataha JC, Ciucchi B, Cattani M, Godin CH, Meyer JM. Bond strength of composite to dentin using conventional, one-step and self-etching adhesive systems. J Dent 2001. 2955–61.

2. Miyazaki M, Sato M, Onose H. Durability of enamel bond strength of simplified bonding systems. Oper Dent 2000. 2575–80.

3. De Munck J, Van Meerbeek B, Satoshi I, Vargas M, Yoshida Y, Armstrong S, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Microtensile bond strengths of one- and two-step self-etch adhesives to bur-cut enamel and dentin. Am J Dent 2003. 16414–420.

4. Miyazaki M, Hinoura K, Honjo G, Onose H. Effect of self-etching primer application method on enamel bond strength. Am J Dent 2002. 15412–416.

5. Inoue S, Vargas MA, Abe Y, Yoshida Y, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G, Sano H, Van Meerbeek B. Microtensile bond strength of eleven contemporary adhesives to enamel. Am J Dent 2003. 16329–334.

6. Toledano M, Osorio R, de Leonardi G, Rosales-Leal JI, Ceballos L, Cabrerizo-Vilchez MA. Influence of self-etching primer on the resin adhesion to enamel and dentin. Am J Dent 2001. 14205–210.

7. Hannig M, Reinhardt KJ, Bott B. Self-etching primer vs phosphoric acid: an alternative concept for composite-to-enamel bonding. Oper Dent 1999. 24172–180.

8. Kanemura N, Sano H, Tagami J. Tensile bond strength to and SEM evaluation of ground and intact enamel surfaces. J Dent 1999. 27523–530.

9. Watanabe I, Nakabayashi N, Pashley DH. Bonding to ground dentin by a Phenyl-P self-etching dentin primer. J Dent Res 1994. 731212–1220.

10. Hayakawa T, Kikutake K, Nemoto K. Influence of self-etching primer treatment on the adhesion of resin composite to polished dentin and enamel. Dent Mater 1998. 1499–105.

11. Kiremitci A, Yalcin F, Gokalp S. Bonding to enamel and dentin using self-etching adhesive systems. Quintessence Int 2004. 35367–370.

12. Tay FR, Pashley DH. Aggressiveness of contemporary self-etching systems. I: Depth of penetration beyond dentin smear layers. Dent Mater 2001. 17296–308.

13. Tay FR, Pashley DH, King NM, Carvalho RM, Tsai J, Lai SCN, Marquezini L. Aggressiveness of self-etch adhesives on unground enamel. Oper Dent 2004. 29309–316.

14. Frankenberger R, Kramer N, Petschelt A. Long-term effect of dentin primers on enamel bond strength and marginal adaptation. Oper Dent 2000. 2511–19.

15. Latta MA, Barkmeier WW, Triolo PT, Cavel WT, Blankenau RJ. One year clinical evaluation of the Clearfil Liner Bond 2 system. J Dent Res 1997. 76162. Abstract no. 1186.

16. Kubo S, Yokota H, Sata Y, Hayashi Y. Microleakage of self-etching primers after thermal and flexural load cycling. Am J Dent 2001. 14163–169.

17. Cho YG, Cho KC. Marginal microleakage of self-etching primer adhesives and a self-etching adhesive. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2002. 27493–501.

18. Sanares AM, Itthagarun A, King NM, Tay FR. Adverse surface interactions between one-bottle light-cured adhesives and chemical-cured composites. Dent Mater 2001. 17542–556.

19. Hu X, Marquis PM, Shortall AC. Two-body in vitro wear study of some current dental composites and amalgam. J Prosthet Dent 1999. 82214–220.

20. Cheong C, King NM, Pashley DH, Ferrari M, Toledano M, Tay FR. Incompatibility of self-etch adhesives with chemical/dual-cured composites: two-step vs one-step systems. Oper Dent 2003. 28747–755.

21. Tay FR, Pashley DH, Peters MC. Adhesive permeability affects composite coupling to dentin treated with a self-etch adhesive. Oper Dent 2003. 28610–621.

22. Tay FR, Pashley DH, Suh BI, Carvalho RM, Miller MB. Single-step self-etch adhesives behave as permeable membranes after polymerization. Part I. Bond strength and morphologic evidence. Am J Dent 2004. 17271–278.

23. Tay FR, Pashley DH, Yiu CK, Sanares AM, Wei SH. Factors contributing to the incompatibility between simplified-step adhesives and chemically-cured or dual-cured composites. Part I. Single-bottle self-etching adhesive. J Adhes Dent 2003. 527–40.

24. Tay FR, Suh BI, Pashley DH, Prati C, Chuang SF, Li F. Factors contributing to the incompatibility between simplified-step adhesives and self-cured or dual-cured composites. Part II. Single-bottle, total-etch adhesive. J Adhes Dent 2003. 591–105.

25. Yoshiyama M, Sano H, Ebisu S, Tagami J, Ciucchi B, Cavalho RM, Johnson MH, Pashley DH. Regional strengths of bonding agents to cervical sclerotic dentin. J Dent Res 1996. 751404–1413.

26. Sano H, Shono T, Sonoda H, Takatsu T, Ciucchi B, Carvalho RM, Pashley DH. Relationship between surface area for adhesion and tensile bond strength-evaluation of a microtensile bond test. Dent Mater 1994. 10236–240.

27. Cho YG, Kim JJ. Microshear bond strength of adhesives according to the direction of enamel rods. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2005. 30344–351.

28. Cheong C, King NM, Pashley DH, Ferrari M, Toledano M, Tay FR. Incompatibility of self-etch adhesives with chemical/dual-cured composites: two-step vs one-step systems. Oper Dent 2003. 28747–755.

29. Yamauchi J. Study of dental adhesive containing phophoric acid methacrylate monomer. Jap J Dent Mater 1986. 5144–154.

30. Lopes GC, Marson FC, Vieira LCC, de Andrada MAC, Baratieri LN. Composite bond strength to enamel with self-etching primers. Oper Dent 2004. 29424–429.

31. Yamada T, Sugizaki J. Basic properties and clinical application of the Clearfil SE Bond. Preceeding of the International Kuraray Symposium 2000. Osaka: 1–6.

32. Perdigao J, Lopes L, Lambrechts P, Leitao J, Van Meerbeek B. Effects of a self-etching primer on enamel shear bond strengths and SEM morphology. Am J Dent 1997. 10141–146.

33. Reifeis PE, Cochran MA, Moore BK. An in vitro shear bond strength study of enamel/dentin bonding systems on enamel. Oper Dent 1995. 20174–179.

34. Swift EJ Jr, Perdigao J, Heymann HO, Ritter AV. Shear bond strength of one-bottle adhesives to moist enamel. J Esthet Dent 1999. 11103–107.

Article information Continued

(open-access) :

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Figure 1

Histogram showing microshear bond strengths of Filtek Z250 and Luxacore Smartmix Dual adhered to enamel by self-etching primer adhesives.

Figure 2

Clearfil SE Bond and Filtek Z250 adhered to enamel.

Figure 3

AdheSE and Filtek Z250 adhered to enamel.

Figure 4

Tyrian SPE/One-Step Plus and Filtek Z250 adhered to enamel.

Figure 5

Contax and Filtek Z250 adhered to enamel.

Figure 6

Clearfil SE Bond and Luxacore Smartmix Dual adhered to enamel.

Figure 7

AdheSE and Luxacore Smartmix Dual adhered to enamel.

Figure 8

Tyrian SPE/One-Step Plus and Luxacore Smartmix Dual adhered to enamel.

Figure 9

Contax and Luxacore Smartmix Dual adhered to enamel.

Table 1

The components of two-step self-etching primer adhesives and pH of primers

MDP = 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate, HEMA = 2 hydroxyethyl methacrylate, DMA = dimethacrylate, BPDM = biphenyl dimethacrylate, Bis-GMA = Bisphenol glycidyl methacrylate

Table 2

Mean microshear bond strength (MP_a) of Filtek Z250 and Luxacore SmartMix Dual to enamel in each group and statistical analysis

Superscripts of the other letter indicate values of statistically significant difference by Tukey HSD (p < 0.01).

Table 3

Statistical comparison between uSBS of Filtek Z250 and Luxacore SmartMix Dual within the same adhesives by t-test