Morphological patterns of self-etching primers and self-etching adhesive bonded to tooth structure

Article information

Restor Dent Endod. 2003;28(1):23-33

Publication date (electronic) : 2003 January 31

doi : https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2003.28.1.023

Young-Gon Cho , Seok-Jong Lee , Jin-Ho Jeong , Young-Gon Lee , Soo-Mee Kim

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

Corresponding author (ygcho@mail.chosun.ac.kr)

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare in vitro interfacial relationship of restorations bonded with three self-etching primer adhesives and one self-etching adhesive.

Class I cavity preparations were prepared on twenty extracted human molars. Prepared teeth were divided into four groups and restored with four adhesives and composites: Clearfil SE Bond/Clearfil™ AP-X (SE), UniFil Bond/UniFil® F (UF), FL Bond/Filtek™ Z 250 (FL) and Prompt L-Pop/Filtek™ Z 250 (LP)

After storing in distilled water of room temperature for 24 hours, the specimens were vertically sectioned and decalcified. Morphological patterns between the enamel/dentin and adhesives were observed under SEM.

The results of this study were as follows;

1. They showed close adaptation between enamel and SE, UF and FL except for LP.

2. The hybrid layer in dentin was 2 µm thick in SE, 1.5 µm thick in UF, and 0.4 µm in both FL and LP. So, the hybrid layers of SE and UF were slightly thicker than that of FL and LP.

3. The lengths and diameters of resin tags in UF and FL were similar, but those of LP were slightly shorter and slenderer than those of SE.

4. The resin tags were long rod shape in SE, and funnel shape in other groups.

Within the limitations of this study, it was concluded that self-etching primer adhesives showed close adaptation on enamel. In addition, the thickness of hybrid layer ranged from 0.4-1.5 µm between adhesives and dentin. The resin tags were long rod or funnel shape, and dimension of them was similar or different among adhesives.

Keywords: Morphological patterns; Self-etching primer adhesive; Self-etching adhesive; SEM; Hybrid layer; Resin tags

References

1. Besnault C, Attal JP. Influence of a simulated oral environment on microleakage of two adhesive systems in Class II composite restorations. J Dent 2002. 301–6.

2. Cardoso PEC, Carrilho MRO, Francci CEF, Perdigao J. Microtensile bond strengths of one-bottle dentin adhesives. Am J Dent 2001. 1422–24.

3. Hashimoto M, Ohno H, Kaga M, Endo K, Sano H, Oguchi H. Resin-tooth adhesive interfaces after long-term function. Am J Dent 2001. 14211–215.

4. Shimada Y, Senawongse P, Harnirattisai C, Burrow MF, Nakaoki Y, Tagami J. Bone strength of two adhesive systems to primary and permanent enamel. Oper Dent 2002. 27403–409.

5. Nunes MF, Swift EJ Jr, Perdigao J. Effects of adhesive composition on microtensile bond strength to humam dentin. Am J Dent 2001. 14340–343.

6. Abdalla AI, Garcia-Godoy F. Morphological characterization of single bottle adhesives and vital dentin interface. Am J Dent 2002. 1531–34.

7. Pereira PNR, Okuda M, Nakajima M, Sano H, Tagami J, Pashley DH. Relationship between bond strengths and nanoleakage: Evaluation of a new assessment method. Am J Dent 2001. 14100–104.

8. Braga RR, Cesar PF, Gonzaga CC. Tensile bond strength of filled and unfilled adhesives to bovine dentin. Am J Dent 2000. 1373–76.

9. Toledano M, Osorio R, Leonardi GD, 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.

10. Hara AT, Amaral CM, Pimenta LAF, Sinhoreti MAC. Shear bond strength of hydrophilic adhesive systems to enamel. Am J Dent 1999. 12181–184.

11. Inoue S, Meerbeek BV, Vargas M, Yoshida Y, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Adhesion mechanism of self-etching adhesives. Advanced Adhesive Dentistry 1999. 3rd edth ed. Internaltional Kuraray symposium; 131–148.

12. 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.

13. Nakabayashi N. Resin reinforced denin due to infiltration of monomers into dentin at the adhesive interface. Dent Mater 1982. 178–81.

14. Li H, Burrow MF, Tyas MJ. The effect of load cycling on the nanoleakage of dentin bonding systems. Dent Mater 2002. 18111–119.

15. Pontes DG, de Melo AT, Monnerat AF. Microleakage of new all-in-one adhesive systems on dentinal and enamel margins. Quintessence Int 2002. 33136–139.

16. Pradelle-Plasse N, Nechad S, Tavernier B, Colon P. Effect of dentin adhesives on the enamel-dentin/composite interfacial microleakage. Am J Dent 2001. 14344–347.

17. Rosa BT, Perdigão J. Bond strengths of nonrinsing adhesives. Quintessence Int 2000. 31353–358.

18. Perdigão J, Frankenberger R, Rosa BT. New trends in dentin/enamel adhesion. Am J Dent 2000. 1325D–30D.

19. Breschi L, Perdigao J, Mazzotti G. Ultramorphology and shear bond strengths of self-etching adhesives on enamel. J Dent Res 1999. 78475. (Abstract 2957).

20. Vargas MA. Interfacial ultrastructure of a self-etching primer/adhesive. J Dent Res 1999. 78224. (Abstract 950).

21. Nakajima M, Ogata M, Okuda M, Tagami J, Sano H, Pashley DH. Bonding to caries-affected dentin using self-etching primers. Am J Dent 1999. 12309–314.

22. Prati C, Chersoni S, Mongiorgi R, Pashley DH. Resin-infiltrated dentin layer formation of new bonding systems. Oper Dent 1998. 23185–194.

23. Prati I, Pashely DH, Chersoni S, Mongiorgi R. Marginal hybrid layer in Class V restorations. Oper Dent 2000. 25228–233.

24. Opdam NJM, Roeters FJM, Feilzer AJ, Verdonschot EH. Marginal integrity and postoperative sensitivity in Class 2 resin composite restorations in vivo. J Dent 1998. 26555–562.

25. Buonocore MG. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res 1955. 34(6)349–853.

26. Ferrari M, Mason PN, Vichi A, Davidson CL. Role of hybridization on leakage and bond strength. Am J Dent 2000. 13329–336.

27. Hashimoto M, Ohno H, Kaga M, Endo K, Sano H, Oguchi H. Fractographical analysis of resin-dentin bonds. Am J Dent 2001. 14355–360.

28. Besnault C, Attal JP. Influence of a simulated oral environment on dentin bond strength of two adhesive systems. Am J Dent 2001. 14367–372.

29. Miyazaki M, Onose H, Moore BK. Effect of operator variability on dentin bond strength of two-step bonding systems. Am J Dent 2000. 13101–104.

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

31. Ogata M, Nakajima M, Sano H, Tagami J. Effect of dentin primer application on regional bond strength to cervical wedge-shaped cavity walls. Oper Dent 1999. 2481–88.

32. Miyazaki M, Iwasaki K, Onose H, Moore BK. Enamel and dentin bond strengths of single application bonding systems. Am J Dent 2001. 14361–366.

33. Yoshiyama M, Matsuo T, Ebisu S, Pashley D. Regional bond strengths of self-etching/self-priming adhesive systems. J Dent 1998. 26609–616.

34. Cho YG, Cho KC. Marginal microleakage of self-etching primer adhesives and a self-etching adhesive. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2002. 27(5)493–501.

35. Spohr AM, Conceicao EN, Pacheco JFM. Tensile bond strength of four adhesive systems to dentin. Am J Dent 2001. 14247–251.

36. Yoshiyama M, Carvalho RM, Sano H, et al. Regional bond strengths of resins to human root dentine. J Dent 1996. 24435–442.

37. Chigira H, Yukitani W, Hasegawa T, et al. Self-etching dentin primers containing phenyl-P. J Dent Res 1994. 731088–1095.

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

39. Santini A, Plasschaert AJM, Mitchell S. Effect of composite resin placement techniques on the microleakage of two self-etching dentin-bonding agents. Am J Dent 2001. 14132–136.

40. Milia E, Lallai MR, Garcia-Godoy F. In vivo effect of a self-etching primer on dentin. Am J Dent 1999. 12167–171.

41. Nakabayashi N, Kojima K, Masuhara E. The promotion of adhesion by the infiltration of monomers into tooth substrates. J Biomed Mater Res 1982. 16265–273.

42. Ogata M, Harada N, Yamaguchi S, Nakajima M, Pereira PNR, Tagami J. Effects of different burs on dentin bond strengths of bonding systems. Oper Dent 2001. 26375–382.

43. Yoshiyama M, Urayama A, Kimochi T, Matsuo T, Pashley DH. Comparison of conventional vs self-etching adhesive bonds to caries-affected dentin. Oper Dent 2000. 25163–169.

44. Ogata M, Okuda M, Nakajima M, Pereira PNR, Sano H, Tagami J. Influence of the direction of tubules on bond strength to dentin. Oper Dent 2001. 2627–35.

45. Frankenberger R, Perdigão J, Rosa BT, Lopes M. "No-bottle" vs "multi-bottle" dentin adhesives--a microtensile bond strength and morphological study. Dent Mater 2001. 17373–380.

46. Ikemura K, Kouro Y, Endo T. Effect of 4-acryloxyethyltrimellitic acid in a self-etching primer on bonding to ground dentin. Dent Mater J 1996. 15132–143.

47. Ferrari M, Cagidiaco MC, Kugel G, et al. Dentin infiltration by three adhesive systems in clinical and laboratory conditions. Am J Dent 1996. 9240–244.

48. Ferrari M, Mannocci F, Kugel G, Garcia-Godoy F. Standardized microscopic evaluation of the bonding mechanism of NRC/Prime & Bond NT. Am J Dent 1999. 1277–83.

49. Mjör IA, Nordahl I. The density and branching of dentinal tubules in human teeth. J Dent Res 1996. 75346. (abstract 2628).

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.

Fig. 1

Enamel (E)-Clearfil SE Bond (SE) interface showed close adaptation. (SEM×1,500)

Fig. 2

Clearfil SE Bond showing 2 µm thick hybrid layer (h) with numerous resin tags (t). (SEM×1,500)

Fig. 3

Higher magnification of Clearfil SE Bond showing long rod shaped resin tags (5-15 µm long). Diameter of resin tags was 2.3 µm thick at the base and 1.3 µm thick at the end. (SEM×3,500)

Fig. 4

Enamel (E)-UniFil Bond (UF) interface showed close adaptation and thick adhesive layer (a) between resin (R) and UF. (SEM×1,500)

Fig. 5

UniFil Bond (UF) showing 1.5 µm thick hybrid layer (h) with few resin tags(t). (SEM×1,500)

Fig. 6

Higher magnification of UniFil Bond (UF) showing long funnel shaped resin tags (3-12 µm long). Diameter of resin tags was 3 µm thick at the base and 1 µm thick at the end. (SEM×3,500)

Fig. 7

Enamel (E)-FL Bond (FL) interface showed close adaptation. (SEM×1,500)

Fig. 8

FL Bond showing 0.4 µm thick hybrid layer (h) with numerous resin tags(t). (SEM×1,500)

Fig. 9

Higher magnification of FL Bond showing long funnel shaped resin tags (2-12 µm long). Diameter of resin tags was 3 µm thick at the base and 1 µm thick at the end. (SEM×3,500)

Fig. 10

Enamel (E)-Prompt L-Pop (LP) interface showed close adaptation and thick adhesive layer (a) between resin (R) and LP. (SEM×1,500)

Fig. 11

Prompt L-Pop showing 0.4 µm thick hybrid layer with numerous resin tags (t). (SEM×1,500)

Fig. 12

Higher magnification of Prompt L-Pop showing short funnel shaped resin tags (4-8 µm long). Diameter of resin tags was 2.4 µm thick at the base and 0.6 µm thick at the end. (SEM×3,500)

Table 1

Group classification of three self-etching primer adhesives and one self-etching adhesive

Table 2

Chemical formulations of four adhesive systems

MDP: 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate,

HEMA: 2-hydroxyethylmethacylate, 4-MET: 4-methacryethyl trimettalic acid,

MFM: multi-functional methacrylate, 4-AET:4-acryloxyethyltrimellitic acid,

4-AETA: 4-acryloxyethyltrimellitate anhydride

Table 3

Hybrid layer thickness (HLT), resin tags length (RTL), resin tags diameter (RTD) and resin tags shape (RTS) of the tested adhesives

^*B: Base diameter of resin tags, E: End diameter of resin tags