We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website and to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage. You will find more information in our privacy policy. OK, I have understood
The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

J Adhes Dent 15 (2013), No. 4     7. Aug. 2013
J Adhes Dent 15 (2013), No. 4  (07.08.2013)

Page 317-324, doi:10.3290/j.jad.a29554, PubMed:23593634


Potential Smear Layer Interference with Bonding of Self-etching Adhesives to Dentin
Suyama, Yuji / Lührs, Anne-Katrin / De Munck, Jan / Mine, Atsushi / Poitevin, André / Yamada, Toshimoto / Van Meerbeek, Bart / Cardoso, Marcio Vivan
Purpose: To evaluate the effect of smear-layer interposition on the bonding effectiveness of self-etching adhesives with different etching potential.
Materials and Methods: Bur-cut dentin specimens were obtained from 25 human molars after preparation of the dentin surface with a medium-grit diamond bur (bur-cut). An additional 25 molars were fractured at the midcoronal dentin to create a smear-layer-free surface (smear-free dentin). The prepared teeth were assigned to 5 groups, according to the adhesive to be applied: a strong one-step self-etching adhesive (PLP, Adper Prompt L-Pop, 3M ESPE, pH = 0.8); two ultra-mild one-step self-etching adhesives (C3S, Clearfil Tri-S Bond, Kuraray, pH = 2.7; AEB, Adper Easy Bond, 3M ESPE; pH = 2.7 ); as the self-etching control, a mild two-step self-etching adhesive (CSE, Clearfil SE Bond, Kuraray, pH of primer = 1.9); and as the etch-and-rinse control, a three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (OFL, Optibond FL, Kerr). After composite buildups were made, all specimens were stored in distilled water (24 h/37°C) prior to microtensile bond strength testing (µTBS). The failure mode was determined with a stereomicroscope at 50X magnification. Representative µTBS specimens were processed for analysis in a Feg-SEM. The Kruskal-Wallis test was performed to determine statistical differences (p < 0.05).
Results: Except for the strong one-step self-etching adhesive, all other self-etching adhesives (mild and ultramild) revealed a significantly lower bond strength to bur-cut dentin than to smear-free dentin. The etch-and-rinse adhesive presented the highest µTBS, which was not significantly different when bonded to bur-cut or smear-free dentin. Fracture analysis demonstrated a prevalence of adhesive failures for the self-etching adhesives, while OFL revealed more mixed failures. SEM revealed that smear debris remained part of the adhesive interfacial complex produced by the ultra-mild one-step self-etching adhesive C3S when applied on bur-cut dentin.
Conclusion: Smear debris interferes with the interaction of mild and ultra-mild self-etching adhesives with dentin.

Keywords: dentin bonding, smear layer, etch-and-rinse adhesive, self-etching adhesive, etching potential
fulltext (no access granted) order article as PDF-file (20.00 €)