Search

Resin-dentin bonds are known to degrade in the relatively aggressive oral environment. In order to obtain greater insight into the interfacial degradation process, we examined, by using transmission electron microscopy (TEM), the interfacial ultrastructure of two adhesives bonded to dentin after 1 yr in vivo. Class V cavities were prepared on the buccal surfaces of 14 intact teeth of two monkeys and then restored by using either the two-step self-etch adhesive, Unifil Bond, or the two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive, Single Bond, in combination with the restorative microhybrid composite, Z250. After 1 yr, 10 other teeth were restored by using the same materials (controls). One day later, the monkeys were killed, following which the microtensile bond strength to dentin was determined and the interfacial ultrastructure was examined by TEM. Whereas no noticeable changes in the morphology of the resin-dentin interface were observed between the 1-d and 1-yr specimens for Unifil Bond, Single Bond exhibited signs of interfacial degradation, in particular at the bottom of the 3 microm-deep hybrid layer. In conclusion, the adhesive interface produced by the etch-and-rinse adhesive was less resistant to degradation than that produced by the self-etch system.

Using transmission electron microscopy (TEM), this study investigated the characteristics of smear layers after preparation of dentin surfaces using different methods. In addition, this study analyzed, using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), the interactions of smear layers with the various acidic agents used subsequently to treat the dentin surface. Mid‐coronal dentin surfaces were prepared according to one of five instrumentation methods: fracture; grinding with carbide bur; grinding with regular‐grit diamond bur; grinding with superfine‐grit diamond bur; or grinding with 600‐grit silicon carbide (SiC) abrasive paper. Then, each prepared dentin surface was further divided into control (no further treatment) or treatment with one of the following agents: phosphoric acid solution (PAS); phosphoric acid gel (PAG); Clearfil SE Bond 2 Primer (SE2); or Scotchbond Universal Adhesive (SBU). Longitudinal ultra‐thin sections were made for TEM observations. Dentin discs, representing each surface preparation and treatment method described above, were created, and the morphology was examined by SEM. The TEM results revealed differences in thickness and denseness of the smear layer, according to the different methods of instrumentation used to prepare the dentin surface. The two forms of phosphoric acid completely removed the smear layer in all groups. Agglomerated silica particles were observed on the top of the collagen layer after etching with PAG. For all dentin surfaces, except for that prepared with SiC, SE2 demonstrated better etching efficacy on different smear layers, whereas SBU provided only superficial interaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abo T, Uno S, Sano H. Comparison of bonding efficacy of an all-in-one adhesive with a self-etching primer system. Eur J Oral Sci 2004; 112: 286–292.© Eur J Oral Sci, 2004 The aim of this study was to compare the bonding efficacy of an all-in-one adhesive with that of a self-etching primer system by measuring microleakage after thermocycling and the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) to enamel and dentin. Circular class V cavities along cement–enamel junctions were prepared in 20 extracted human premolars. Each 10 teeth were bonded with either AD Bond (AD) or Clearfil SE Bond (SE), and filled with a resin composite (Charisma). After thermocycling and staining with 0.5% basic fuchsin, the microleakage at the coronal and apical walls was evaluated using longitudinal sections. In addition 20 premolars were used to measure μTBS at 24 h after bonding for these adhesives to enamel and dentin that corresponded to the coronal and apical walls of the class V cavities. AD showed more microleakage than SE in the coronal walls, but there was less microleakage in the apical walls and no difference in apical leakage between the two adhesives. μTBS (SD) in MPa to enamel and dentin were 25.2 (7.3) and 68.3 (9.4) for AD, and 35.8 (7.4) and 76.4 (7.8) for SE, respectively. AD gave a lower μTBS to enamel than did SE. The results suggested that the poor adaptation at the coronal wall in AD might be caused by the lower bond strength to enamel. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]