We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry



Forgotten password?


J Adhes Dent 13 (2011), No. 1     15. Feb. 2011
J Adhes Dent 13 (2011), No. 1  (15.02.2011)

Page 23-29, doi:10.3290/j.jad.a18445, PubMed:21403933

Enamel Margin Integrity of Class I One-bottle All-in-one Adhesives-based Restorations
Blunck, Uwe / Zaslansky, Paul
Purpose: To evaluate marginal adaptation of Class I restorations in enamel using contemporary one-bottle all-in-one adhesives, stressed by thermocycling (TC) and mechanical loading (ML).
Materials and Methods: Ninety-six extracted human molars were prepared (standard Class I cavities: 3 mm deep, 6 mm wide mesio-distally, and 4 mm wide bucco-lingually). Twelve adhesive systems were used: OptiBond FL (OPT), Clearfil SE Bond (CSE) and Adper Prompt L-Pop (PLP) as controls, compared with nine one-bottle all-in-one adhesives - AdheSe One (AHO), Adper Easy Bond (EB), Bond Force (BF), G-Bond (GB), iBond Self Etch (IB), One Coat 7.0 (OC), OptiBond All-in-one (OPA), Clearfil Tri-S-Bond (TSB), Xeno V (XV). All teeth were restored using Filtek Z250 placed in three (one horizontal, two oblique) increments. Enamel margins were evaluated following 21 days of water storage, after thermocycling (2000 cycles: 5°C to 55°C), and after mechanical loading (150,000 cycles, 50 N). After each step, replicas were produced and quantitative SEM margin analysis was performed (200X) using defined criteria.
Results: The median values of % "continuous margin" following TC and ML, respectively, were: OPT(98.6/96.2), CSE(95.4/90.9), BF(81.7/68.1), GB(81.1/65.0), OPA(83.0/68.1), OC(64.1/41.3), TSB(59.3/42.2), EB(57.1/42.6), IB(38.4/27.6), PLP(36.6/21.5), XV(45.0/30.0), AHO(17.7/5.4). Statistical evaluation (Kruskal-Wallis test with Bonferroni adjustment, p < 0.05) revealed the following ranking for ML: OPT=CSE>BF=OPA=GB>OC=EB=TSB=XV =IB=PLP>AHO.
Conclusion: All one-bottle all-in-one adhesives exhibited statistically significant lower marginal qualities in enamel compared to the etch-and-rinse system OPF and the two-step self-etching system CSE. The results obtained for GB, OPA and BF, however, were better than for the other all-in-one adhesives.

Keywords: marginal quality evaluation, Class I, adhesive system effectiveness, thermocycling, mechanical loading