Bond strength and etching pattern of adhesive systems to enamel: effects of conditioning time and enamel preparation

Effects of different primers and colouring solutions on orthodontic bonding: shear bond strength and colour change

OBJECTIVES

This in vitro study evaluated the effect of different colouring solutions and primer systems used in the bonding of brackets on enamel colour change and bond strength.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

120 premolar teeth were divided into four main groups; brackets were bonded with 37% orthophosphoric acid + Transbond XT Primer in Group 1, 3 M Single Bond Universal in Group 2, Transbond Plus SEP in Group 3, and G-Premio Bond in Group 4. Each group was divided into three subgroups, and the teeth were placed in a cup containing coffee and tea mixture, in a cup containing cola and in distilled water. A bond strength test was applied to all teeth. Colour measurements of all teeth were performed at 2 different times: before bonding and after the bond strength test.

RESULTS

The average bond strength of the 37% orthophosphoric acid group was higher than that of the other groups. The effect of primer and solution groups on colour change was statistically significant (p = 0.001 and p = 0.023, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the bond strength was clinically sufficient in all primer groups. The highest colour change was observed when the tea-coffee solution and Transbond Plus SEP primer were used.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study has identified enamel discoloration and bond strength from different colouring solutions and primer systems used for bonding braces, which can be used to inform clinicians and patients to achieve better treatment results.

Is the presence of 10-MDP associated to higher bonding performance for self-etching adhesive systems? A meta-analysis of in vitro studies

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the literature on the bond strength of self-etching (SE) adhesives containing 10-MDP or other acidic functional monomers, comparing the bonding performance of both compositions.

METHODS

This study is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020175715) and it followed the PRISMA Statement. The literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, SciELO, Scopus, LILACS, IBECS, and BBO from the starting coverage date through 30 June 2021. Study eligibility criteria consisted of in vitro studies that evaluated the bond strength (microtensile, microshear, tensile or shear testing) to sound dentin/enamel of a minimum of two distinct SE systems, with at least one material containing 10-MDP and one other being comprised of a distinct acidic composition. Statistical analyses were carried out with RevMan 5.3.5 and using random-effects models with the significance level at p < 0.05. Also, Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted using MetaInsight V3 tool.

RESULTS

From 740 relevant studies evaluated in full-text analysis, 210 were incorporated to the systematic review and 206 in meta-analysis. The majority of studies was classified as having medium risk of bias (56.7%), followed by low (35.2%) and high (8.1%) risk of bias. Data from a total of 64 adhesive systems were collected, which favored the 10-MDP-based group at both dentin (overall effect: 6.98; 95% CI: 5.61, 8.36; p < 0.00001) and enamel (overall effect: 2.79; 95% CI: 1.62, 3.96; p < 0.00001) substrates. Microtensile testing was more frequently used (73.4%) in the included studies. Adhesives based on 10-MDP showed greater bonding performance than adhesives comprised of monomers such as PENTA, 6-MHP, 4-META, 4-MET, pyrophosphate esters, mixed composition or monomers derived from sulfonic acid (p ≤ 0.01); whereas similar bond strength values were verified between 10-MDP-based materials and those containing PEM-F, acrylamide phosphates, 4-AET, MAC-10, or monomers derived from polyacrylic and phosphonic acids (p ≥ 0.05). Adhesives based on GPDM were the only ones that resulted in greater bonding potential than the 10-MDP-based group (p = 0.03). Dental bonds in dentin were favored with the application of 2-step 10-MDP-based adhesives; whereas in enamel the dental bonds were favored for both 2-steps versions of adhesives, regardless of the presence of 10-MDP. Indirect evidence from NMA revealed that 1-step 10-MDP-free and universal 10-MDP-free adhesives seemed to perform worst in dentin and enamel, respectively.

SIGNIFICANCE

Adhesives containing 10-MDP showed higher bonding performance than materials formulated with other acidic ingredients, although this result relied on the type of mechanical testing, type of the substrate, acidic composition of the adhesive, and the application category of the SE system. This review summarized the effects of the foregoing factors on the adhesion to dental substrates.

Comparison of shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with a universal adhesive using different etching methods

Objective:

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of three enamel etching modes - laser-etch, self-etch and acid-etch (5, 10 and 15 s) - on bracket bonding, using a universal adhesive.

Methods:

Eighty-four maxillary premolars were randomly divided into seven groups (n=12) based on the etching method and the adhesive used for bracket bonding. After water storage and thermocycling, shear bond strength was measured, and adhesive remnant index scores on debonded enamel were determined.

Results:

There were significant differences between the seven groups regarding bond strength values (p< 0.001). The highest values were observed in universal adhesive with laser etching group, while Transbond XT with acid or laser etching, and universal adhesive used in self-etch mode demonstrated the lowest bond strength. The universal adhesive with the three different etching times presented with statistically similar results, all showing an improvement in bond strength, compared with Scotchbond universal (SBU)/SE.

Conclusions:

The universal adhesive evaluated in the present study demonstrated statistically similar bond strengths to conventional orthodontic adhesive in self-etch mode. The bond strength can be improved by adding an initial acid etching or laser conditioning step, although enamel damage was observed in some cases.

Bond strength of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesive systems to enamel and dentin irradiated with a novel CO2 9.3 μm short-pulsed laser for dental restorative procedures

The objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of CO₂ 9.3 μm short-pulsed laser irradiation on the shear bond strength of composite resin to enamel and dentin. Two hundred enamel and 210 dentin samples were irradiated with a 9.3 µm carbon dioxide laser (Solea, Convergent Dental, Inc., Natick, MA) with energies which either enhanced caries resistance or were effective for ablation. OptiBond Solo Plus [OptiBondTE] (Kerr Corporation, Orange, CA) and Peak Universal Bond light-cured adhesive [PeakTE] (Ultradent Products, South Jordan, UT) were used. In addition, Scotchbond Universal [ScotchbondSE] (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN) and Peak SE self-etching primer with Peak Universal Bond light-cured adhesive [PeakSE] (Ultradent Products) were tested. Clearfil APX (Kuraray, New York, NY) was bonded to the samples. After 24 h, a single plane shear bond test was performed. Using the caries preventive setting on enamel resulted in increased shear bond strength for all bonding agents except for self-etch PeakSE. The highest overall bond strength was seen with PeakTE (41.29 ± 6.04 MPa). Etch-and-rinse systems achieved higher bond strength values to ablated enamel than the self-etch systems did. PeakTE showed the highest shear bond strength with 35.22 ± 4.40 MPa. OptiBondTE reached 93.8% of its control value. The self-etch system PeakSE presented significantly lower bond strength. The shear bond strength to dentin ranged between 19.15 ± 3.49 MPa for OptiBondTE and 43.94 ± 6.47 MPa for PeakSE. Etch-and-rinse systems had consistently higher bond strength to CO₂ 9.3 µm laser-ablated enamel. Using the maximum recommended energy for dentin ablation, the self-etch system PeakSE reached the highest bond strength (43.9 ± 6.5 MPa).

Effect of different adhesive strategies on microtensile bond strength of computer aided design/computer aided manufacturing blocks bonded to dentin

Background:

The aim of this study was to determine the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of ceramic and composite computer aided design-computer aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) blocks bonded to dentin using different adhesive strategies.

Materials and Methods:

In this in vitro study, 30 crowns of sound freshly extracted human molars were sectioned horizontally 3 mm above the cementoenamel junction to produce flat dentin surfaces. Ceramic and composite CAD/CAM blocks, size 14, were sectioned into slices of 3 mm thick. Before bonding, CAD/CAM block surfaces were treated according to the manufacturer's instructions. Groups were created based on the adhesive strategy used: Group 1 (GI) - conventional resin cement + total-etch adhesive system, Group 2 (GII) - conventional resin cement + self-etch adhesive system, and Group 3 (GIII) - self-adhesive resin cement with no adhesive. Bonded specimens were stored in 100% humidity for 24h at 37΀C, and then sectioned with a slow-speed diamond saw to obtain 1 mm × 1 mm × 6 mm microsticks. Microtensile testing was then conducted using a microtensile tester. μTBS values were expressed in MPa and analyzed by one-way ANOVA with post hoc (Tukey) test at the 5% significance level.

Results:

Mean values and standard deviations of μTBS (MPa) were 17.68 (±2.71) for GI/ceramic; 17.62 (±3.99) for GI/composite; 13.61 (±6.92) for GII/composite; 12.22 (±4.24) for GII/ceramic; 7.47 (±2.29) for GIII/composite; and 6.48 (±3.10) for GIII/ceramic; ANOVA indicated significant differences among the adhesive modality and block interaction (P < 0.05), and no significant differences among blocks only, except between GI and GII/ceramic. Bond strength of GIII was consistently lower (P < 0.05) than GI and GII groups, regardless the block used.

Conclusion:

Cementation of CAD/CAM restorations, either composite or ceramic, can be significantly affected by different adhesive strategies used.

Influence of etching time and bonding strategies on the microshear bond strength of self- and light-cured pit-and-fissure sealants

This study evaluated the impact of extended etching and bonding strategies on the microshear bond strength of three sealant materials. Two pit-and-fissure sealants [FluroShield, Dentsply (light-cured) and AlphaSeal, DFL (self-cured)] and one light-cured flowable composite resin (Permaflo, Ultradent) were evaluated according to different enamel etching times (15 s or 30 s) and bonding procedures (no adhesive application, application of primer/hydrophobic resin or hydrophobic resin only). Intact enamel blocks were obtained from bovine teeth and sealed via the tested protocols. After 24 h, the microshear bond strength test was performed in a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Failure modes were classified by stereomicroscopy. Data were submitted to a three-way ANOVA and to Tukey's test (α=0.05). There was no statistically significant difference (p>0.05) among the materials. Permaflo showed higher bond strength when etched for 30 s alone. Enamel overetching decreased the bond strength of the light-cured sealant. Primer/bond previous treatment improved bond performance for AlphaSeal. In conclusion, from the tested conditions, all sealant materials presented similar bond strength values in relation to bonding protocol and etching time. The flowable composite can be used as a pit-and-fissure sealant. The use of a three-step adhesive system was essential for the self-cured sealant application.

Evaluating resin-enamel bonds by microshear and microtensile bond strength tests: effects of composite resin

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were to evaluate the effect of resin composite (Filtek Z250 and Filtek Flow Z350) and adhesive system [(Solobond Plus, Futurabond NR (VOCO) and Adper Single Bond (3M ESPE)] on the microtensile (μTBS) and microshear bond strength (μSBS) tests on enamel, and to correlate the bond strength means between them.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Thirty-six extracted human molars were sectioned to obtain two tooth halves: one for μTBS and the other one for μSBS. Adhesive systems and resin composites were applied to the enamel ground surfaces and light-cured. After storage (37(0)C/24 h) specimens were stressed (0.5 mm/min). Fracture modes were analyzed under scanning electron microscopy. The data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α=0.05).

RESULTS

The correlation between tests was estimated with Pearson's product-moment correlation statistics (α =0.05). For both tests only the main factor resin composite was statistically significant (p<0.05). The correlation test detected a positive (r=0.91) and significant (p=0.01) correlation between the tests.

CONCLUSIONS

The results were more influenced by the resin type than by the adhesives. Both microbond tests seem to be positive and linearly correlated and can therefore lead to similar conclusions.

Microtensile bond strength test and failure analysis to assess bonding characteristics of different adhesion approaches to ground versus unground enamel

This study evaluated the bonding characteristics to ground and unground enamel obtained with different strategies. For this purpose, 24 sound third-molars were bisected mesiodistally to obtain tooth halves. A flat enamel area was delimited in the tooth sections, which were randomly distributed into 8 groups (n=6), according to the enamel condition (ground and unground) and adhesive system (Adper Single Bond 2 - SB2; Adper Prompt L-Pop - PLP; Adper Prompt - AD; Clearfil SE Bond - SE). Each system was applied according manufacturers' instructions and a 6-mm-high resin composite "crown" was incrementally built up on bonded surfaces. Hourglass-shaped specimens with 0.8 mm(2) cross-section were produced. Microtensile bond strength (μTBS) was recorded and the failure patterns were classified. Results were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α=0.05). There were no statistically significant differences among the μTBS values of SB2, PLP and AD (p>0.05). SE values were significantly lower (p0.05). There was prevalence of cohesive failure within enamel, adhesive system and resin composite for SB2. The self-etch systems produced higher incidence of cohesive failures in the adhesive system. Enamel condition did not determine significant differences on bonding characteristics for the same bonding system. In conclusion, the bonding systems evaluated in this study resulted in specific μTBS and failure patterns due to the particular interaction with enamel.