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 µm-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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: Phase-separation within HEMA-free all-in-one dental adhesives may result in the entrapment of droplets within the adhesive resin. Strongly air-blowing prior to polymerization, can remove most of these droplets. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect these droplets may have on the resistance of the adhesive–tooth interface to NaOCl degradation. Methods: The micro-tensile bond strength (μTBS) to enamel and dentin was determined when a HEMA-free all-in-one adhesive was applied either following a mild or strong air-blowing technique. The bonds were also exposed to an aqueous sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) solution for 1h, following a recently introduced methodology to mimic in vivo bond degradation. Results: This study revealed that strong air-blowing of the adhesive only resulted in a significantly higher micro-tensile bond strength (μTBS) to dentin, but not to enamel. Likewise, NaOCl only reduced the μTBS to dentin for both the mild and strong air-blowing technique, but again not the μTBS to enamel. Failure analysis by SEM clearly revealed that strong air-blowing is less effective in droplet removal when the adhesive was applied in small and narrow class-I cavities, as compared to when it was applied to flat surfaces. Conclusions: NaOCl did preferentially dissolve the hybrid layer at dentin, and more for the mild than for the strong air-blowing technique. A strong air-blowing procedure resulted in a more NaOCl-resistant hybrid layer, so that it can be concluded that a HEMA-free one-step adhesive definitely benefits from a strong air-blowing technique. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]