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
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

J Adhes Dent 21 (2019), No. 2     12. Apr. 2019
J Adhes Dent 21 (2019), No. 2  (12.04.2019)

Page 117-132, doi:10.3290/j.jad.a42304, PubMed:30949625


Do Universal Adhesives Benefit from an Extra Bonding Layer?
Ahmed, Mohammed H. / De Munck, Jan / Van Landuyt, Kirsten / Peumans, Marleen / Yoshihara, Kumiko / Van Meerbeek, Bart
Purpose: Universal adhesives use a combined primer/bonding resin applied either in 2-step etch-and-rinse (2-E&R) or 1-step self-etch (1-SE) mode. This study investigated whether three universal adhesives would benefit from an extra bonding layer (EBL), essentially making them 3-step E&R (3-E&R) and 2-SE adhesives, respectively.
Materials and Methods: Microtensile bond strengths (μTBSs) to bur-cut dentin of Clearfil Universal Bond Quick (C-UBq, Kuraray Noritake), G-Premio Bond (G-PrB, GC) and Prime&Bond Active (P&Ba, Dentsply Sirona) were compared to those of the 2-SEa Clearfil SE Bond 2 (C-SE2, Kuraray Noritake) which was also employed in 3-E&R mode. A split-tooth design was applied with each adhesive used in E&R and SE mode on each tooth, half without/with EBL (C-SE2 Bond). All adhesives were light cured after application of the final layer. The μTBS of one-third of the specimens was measured after 1-month water storage without thermocycling (TC), with the remaining two-thirds aged with 25,000 and 50,000 TCs. All μTBSs were statistically analyzed using a linear mixed-effects model with specific contrasts (p < 0.05).
Results: Overall, the four variables (adhesive, bonding mode, EBL, aging) significantly influenced μTBS. Solely G-PrB benefited from EBL when applied in SE mode. In E&R mode, P&Ba generally resulted in the highest µTBSs, C-UBq presented with intermediate and G-PrB with the lowest µTBSs, where the latter was significantly lower than the µTBSs recorded for C-SE2. In SE mode, P&Ba generally resulted in the highest µTBSs in 1- and 2-SE mode. Equally high µTBSs were recorded for G-PrB in 2-SE mode with EBL. Lower µTBSs were recorded for G-PrB in 1-SE mode and for C-UBq in 1- and 2-SE mode.
Conclusion: The overall effect of EBL on immediate and aged bonding efficacy depended on the specific universal adhesive and its bonding mode.

Keywords: bond strength, durability, hydrophobic, linear mixed model, adhesive-dentin interface