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

Sae-Hee Han; Eun-Soung Kim; Young-Gon Cho

doi:10.5395/JKACD.2007.32.3.169

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Restor Dent Endod > Volume 32(3); 2007 > Article

Original Article Enamel adhesion of light- and chemical-cured composites coupled by two step self-etch adhesives: Sae-Hee Han¹, Eun-Soung Kim², Young-Gon Cho²; Journal of Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry 2007;32(3):169-179.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2007.32.3.169
Published online: May 31, 2007

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: January 3, 2007 • Revised: March 7, 2007 • Accepted: March 15, 2007

29 Views
1 Download

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
REFERENCES

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;29: 55-61.Article PubMed
2. Miyazaki M, Sato M, Onose H. Durability of enamel bond strength of simplified bonding systems. Oper Dent. 2000;25: 75-80.Article PubMed
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;16: 414-420.PubMed
4. Miyazaki M, Hinoura K, Honjo G, Onose H. Effect of self-etching primer application method on enamel bond strength. Am J Dent. 2002;15: 412-416.PubMed
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;16: 329-334.PubMed
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;14: 205-210.PubMed
7. Hannig M, Reinhardt KJ, Bott B. Self-etching primer vs phosphoric acid: an alternative concept for composite-to-enamel bonding. Oper Dent. 1999;24: 172-180.PubMed
8. Kanemura N, Sano H, Tagami J. Tensile bond strength to and SEM evaluation of ground and intact enamel surfaces. J Dent. 1999;27: 523-530.Article PubMed
9. Watanabe I, Nakabayashi N, Pashley DH. Bonding to ground dentin by a Phenyl-P self-etching dentin primer. J Dent Res. 1994;73: 1212-1220.PubMed
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;14: 99-105.Article PubMed
11. Kiremitci A, Yalcin F, Gokalp S. Bonding to enamel and dentin using self-etching adhesive systems. Quintessence Int. 2004;35: 367-370.PubMed
12. Tay FR, Pashley DH. Aggressiveness of contemporary self-etching systems. I: Depth of penetration beyond dentin smear layers. Dent Mater. 2001;17: 296-308.PubMed
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;29: 309-316.PubMed
14. Frankenberger R, Kramer N, Petschelt A. Long-term effect of dentin primers on enamel bond strength and marginal adaptation. Oper Dent. 2000;25: 11-19.PubMed
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;76: 162. 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;14: 163-169.PubMed
17. Cho YG, Cho KC. Marginal microleakage of self-etching primer adhesives and a self-etching adhesive. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2002;27: 493-501.Article
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;17: 542-556.Article PubMed
19. Hu X, Marquis PM, Shortall AC. Two-body in vitro wear study of some current dental composites and amalgam. J Prosthet Dent. 1999;82: 214-220.PubMed
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;28: 747-755.PubMed
21. Tay FR, Pashley DH, Peters MC. Adhesive permeability affects composite coupling to dentin treated with a self-etch adhesive. Oper Dent. 2003;28: 610-621.PubMed
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;17: 271-278.PubMed
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;5: 27-40.PubMed
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;5: 91-105.PubMed
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;75: 1404-1413.Article PubMed PDF
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;10: 236-240.Article PubMed
27. Cho YG, Kim JJ. Microshear bond strength of adhesives according to the direction of enamel rods. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2005;30: 344-351.Article
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;28: 747-755.PubMed
29. Yamauchi J. Study of dental adhesive containing phophoric acid methacrylate monomer. Jap J Dent Mater. 1986;5: 144-154.
30. Lopes GC, Marson FC, Vieira LCC, de Andrada MAC, Baratieri LN. Composite bond strength to enamel with self-etching primers. Oper Dent. 2004;29: 424-429.PubMed
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;10: 141-146.PubMed
33. Reifeis PE, Cochran MA, Moore BK. An in vitro shear bond strength study of enamel/dentin bonding systems on enamel. Oper Dent. 1995;20: 174-179.PubMed
34. Swift EJ Jr, Perdigao J, Heymann HO, Ritter AV. Shear bond strength of one-bottle adhesives to moist enamel. J Esthet Dent. 1999;11: 103-107.PubMed

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

Tables & Figures

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

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

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

XML Download

Figure

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

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.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8

Figure 9

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

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

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 (MPa) 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