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

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

doi:10.5395/JKACD.2003.28.1.023

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Restor Dent Endod > Volume 28(1); 2003 > Article

Original Article Morphological patterns of self-etching primers and self-etching adhesive bonded to tooth structure: Young-Gon Cho, Seok-Jong Lee, Jin-Ho Jeong, Young-Gon Lee, Soo-Mee Kim; Journal of Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry 2003;28(1):23-33.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2003.28.1.023
Published online: January 31, 2003

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

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

22 Views
0 Download

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
REFERENCES

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;30: 1-6.PubMed
2. Cardoso PEC, Carrilho MRO, Francci CEF, Perdigao J. Microtensile bond strengths of one-bottle dentin adhesives. Am J Dent. 2001;14: 22-24.PubMed
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;14: 211-215.PubMed
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;27: 403-409.PubMed
5. Nunes MF, Swift EJ Jr, Perdigao J. Effects of adhesive composition on microtensile bond strength to humam dentin. Am J Dent. 2001;14: 340-343.PubMed
6. Abdalla AI, Garcia-Godoy F. Morphological characterization of single bottle adhesives and vital dentin interface. Am J Dent. 2002;15: 31-34.PubMed
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;14: 100-104.PubMed
8. Braga RR, Cesar PF, Gonzaga CC. Tensile bond strength of filled and unfilled adhesives to bovine dentin. Am J Dent. 2000;13: 73-76.PubMed
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;14: 205-210.PubMed
10. Hara AT, Amaral CM, Pimenta LAF, Sinhoreti MAC. Shear bond strength of hydrophilic adhesive systems to enamel. Am J Dent. 1999;12: 181-184.PubMed
11. Inoue S, Meerbeek BV, Vargas M, Yoshida Y, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Adhesion mechanism of self-etching adhesives. Advanced Adhesive Dentistry. 1999;3rd 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;14: 163-169.PubMed
13. Nakabayashi N. Resin reinforced denin due to infiltration of monomers into dentin at the adhesive interface. Dent Mater. 1982;1: 78-81.
14. Li H, Burrow MF, Tyas MJ. The effect of load cycling on the nanoleakage of dentin bonding systems. Dent Mater. 2002;18: 111-119.PubMed
15. Pontes DG, de Melo AT, Monnerat AF. Microleakage of new all-in-one adhesive systems on dentinal and enamel margins. Quintessence Int. 2002;33: 136-139.PubMed
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;14: 344-347.PubMed
17. Rosa BT, Perdigão J. Bond strengths of nonrinsing adhesives. Quintessence Int. 2000;31: 353-358.PubMed
18. Perdigão J, Frankenberger R, Rosa BT. New trends in dentin/enamel adhesion. Am J Dent. 2000;13: 25D-30D.PubMed
19. Breschi L, Perdigao J, Mazzotti G. Ultramorphology and shear bond strengths of self-etching adhesives on enamel. J Dent Res. 1999;78: 475. (Abstract 2957).
20. Vargas MA. Interfacial ultrastructure of a self-etching primer/adhesive. J Dent Res. 1999;78: 224. (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;12: 309-314.PubMed
22. Prati C, Chersoni S, Mongiorgi R, Pashley DH. Resin-infiltrated dentin layer formation of new bonding systems. Oper Dent. 1998;23: 185-194.PubMed
23. Prati I, Pashely DH, Chersoni S, Mongiorgi R. Marginal hybrid layer in Class V restorations. Oper Dent. 2000;25: 228-233.PubMed
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;26: 555-562.Article PubMed
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;13: 329-336.PubMed
27. Hashimoto M, Ohno H, Kaga M, Endo K, Sano H, Oguchi H. Fractographical analysis of resin-dentin bonds. Am J Dent. 2001;14: 355-360.PubMed
28. Besnault C, Attal JP. Influence of a simulated oral environment on dentin bond strength of two adhesive systems. Am J Dent. 2001;14: 367-372.PubMed
29. Miyazaki M, Onose H, Moore BK. Effect of operator variability on dentin bond strength of two-step bonding systems. Am J Dent. 2000;13: 101-104.PubMed
30. Hannig M, Reihardt KJ, Bott B. Self-etching primer vs phosphoric acid: An alternative concept for composite-to-enamel bonding. Oper Dent. 1999;24: 172-180.PubMed
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;24: 81-88.PubMed
32. Miyazaki M, Iwasaki K, Onose H, Moore BK. Enamel and dentin bond strengths of single application bonding systems. Am J Dent. 2001;14: 361-366.PubMed
33. Yoshiyama M, Matsuo T, Ebisu S, Pashley D. Regional bond strengths of self-etching/self-priming adhesive systems. J Dent. 1998;26: 609-616.PubMed
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;14: 247-251.PubMed
36. Yoshiyama M, Carvalho RM, Sano H, et al. Regional bond strengths of resins to human root dentine. J Dent. 1996;24: 435-442.Article PubMed
37. Chigira H, Yukitani W, Hasegawa T, et al. Self-etching dentin primers containing phenyl-P. J Dent Res. 1994;73: 1088-1095.PubMed
38. Watanabe I, Nakabayashi N, Pashley DH. Bonding to ground dentin by a Phenyl-P self-etching Primer. J Dent Res. 1994;73: 1212-1220.PubMed
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;14: 132-136.PubMed
40. Milia E, Lallai MR, Garcia-Godoy F. In vivo effect of a self-etching primer on dentin. Am J Dent. 1999;12: 167-171.PubMed
41. Nakabayashi N, Kojima K, Masuhara E. The promotion of adhesion by the infiltration of monomers into tooth substrates. J Biomed Mater Res. 1982;16: 265-273.PubMed
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;26: 375-382.PubMed
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;25: 163-169.PubMed
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;26: 27-35.PubMed
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;17: 373-380.PubMed
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;15: 132-143.PubMed
47. Ferrari M, Cagidiaco MC, Kugel G, et al. Dentin infiltration by three adhesive systems in clinical and laboratory conditions. Am J Dent. 1996;9: 240-244.PubMed
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;12: 77-83.PubMed
49. Mjör IA, Nordahl I. The density and branching of dentinal tubules in human teeth. J Dent Res. 1996;75: 346. (abstract 2628).

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

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

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

J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2003;28(1):23-33. Published online January 31, 2003

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

XML Download

Figure

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

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)

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

Fig. 6

Fig. 7

Fig. 8

Fig. 9

Fig. 10

Fig. 11

Fig. 12

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

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

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