Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics

Effect of smear layer deproteinization on bonding of self-etch adhesives to dentin: a systematic review and meta-analysis: Khaldoan H. Alshaikh, Hamdi H. H. Hamama, Salah H. Mahmoud; Restor Dent Endod 2018;43(2):e14. Published online March 6, 2018; DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2018.43.e14

Abstract PDF PubReader ePub: Objectives
The aim of this systematic review was to critically analyze previously published studies of the effects of dentin surface pretreatment with deproteinizing agents on the bonding of self-etch (SE) adhesives to dentin. Additionally, a meta-analysis was conducted to quantify the effects of the above-mentioned surface pretreatment methods on the bonding of SE adhesives to dentin.
Materials and Methods
An electronic search was performed using the following databases: Scopus, PubMed and ScienceDirect. The online search was performed using the following keywords: ‘dentin’ or ‘hypochlorous acid’ or ‘sodium hypochlorite’ and ‘self-etch adhesive.’ The following categories were excluded during the assessment process: non-English articles, randomized clinical trials, case reports, animal studies, and review articles. The reviewed studies were subjected to meta-analysis to quantify the effect of the application time and concentration of sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and hypochlorous acid (HOCl) deproteinizing agents on bonding to dentin.
Results
Only 9 laboratory studies fit the inclusion criteria of this systematic review. The results of the meta-analysis revealed that the pooled average microtensile bond strength values to dentin pre-treated with deproteinizing agents (15.71 MPa) was significantly lower than those of the non-treated control group (20.94 MPa).
Conclusions
In light of the currently available scientific evidence, dentin surface pretreatment with deproteinizing agents does not enhance the bonding of SE adhesives to dentin. The HOCl deproteinizing agent exhibited minimal adverse effects on bonding to dentin in comparison with NaOCl solutions.

28 View
0 Download

Enamel adhesion of light- and chemical-cured composites coupled by two step self-etch adhesives: Sae-Hee Han, Eun-Soung Kim, Young-Gon Cho; J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2007;32(3):169-179. Published online May 31, 2007; DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2007.32.3.169

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.

30 View
1 Download

Microshear bond strength of adhesives according to the direction of enamel rods: Young-Gon Cho, Jong-Jin Kim; J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2005;30(4):344-351. Published online July 30, 2005; DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2005.30.4.344

Abstract PDF PubReader ePub

This study compared the microshear bond strength (µSBS) to end and side of enamel rod bonded by four adhesives including two total etch adhesives and two self-etch adhesives.

Crown segments of extracted human molars were cut mesiodistally. The outer buccal or lingual surface was used as specimens cutting the ends of enamel rods, and inner slabs used as specimens cutting the sides of enamel rods.

They were assigned to four groups by used adhesives: Group 1 (All-Bond 2), Group 2 (Single Bond), Group 3 (Tyrian SPE/One-Step Plus), Group 4 (Adper Prompt L-Pop). After each adhesive was applied to enamel surface, three composite cylinders were adhered to it of each specimen using 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 results of this study were as follows;

1. The µSBS of Group 2 (16.50 ± 2.31 _MPa) and Group 4 (15.83 ± 2.33 _MPa) to the end of enamel prism was significantly higher than that of Group 1 (11.93 ± 2.25 _MPa) and Group 3 (11.97 ± 2.05 _MPa) (p < 0.05).

2. The µSBS of Group 2 (13.43 ± 2.93 _MPa) to the side of enamel prism was significantly higher than that of Group 1 (8.64 ± 1.53 _MPa), Group 3 (9.69 ± 1.80 _MPa), and Group 4 (10.56 ± 1.75 _MPa) (p < 0.05).

3. The mean µSBS to the end of enamel rod was significantly higher than that to the side of enamel rod in all group (p < 0.05).

26 View
0 Download

Search