Search

Self-etching primer adhesives have recently been introduced to simplify bonding. However, the fundamental bonding mechanism of self-etching primers to enamel is not yet fully understood. This study aimed to investigate resin-enamel bonds of self-etching primer adhesives on ground enamel. Two self-etching primer adhesives (Clearfil Liner Bond 2 V and Clearfil SE Bond) were used in this study. A total-etch adhesive (One-Step) was used as a control. Resin-enamel beams were subjected to the microtensile bond test. Subsequently, the failure modes of all specimens were quantified using image analysis. Undemineralized and demineralized ultrathin sections of the resin-enamel bonded specimens were examined using transmission electron microscopy. The bond strengths of Clearfil SE Bond (39.8 +/- 11.9 MPa) and One-Step (46.2 +/- 12.7 MPa) were significantly greater than that of Clearfil Liner Bond 2V (30.4 +/- 6.2 MPa). Scanning electron microscopy of the fractured surfaces revealed the failure direction and weakest portion within each bond. Transmission electron microscopy showed a thin hybridized complex of resin in enamel produced by the self-etching primers without the usual micrometer-sized resin tags seen in resin-enamel bonds produced using the total-etch adhesive. The morphological features of the resin-enamel bonds produced by two self-etching primers tested were different from that created with the total-etch adhesive.

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]