|
|
pH primer |
Enamel µTBS (MPa) |
Dentin µTBS (MPa) |
Hybrid layer thickness |
|||
|
Mean |
ptf/n* |
|
Mean |
ptf/n |
|||
|
A-SE |
1.40 |
23.2 ± 10.8b,c |
1/12 |
|
30.9 ± 13.1b |
0/12 |
2.1-2.4 µm |
|
O-SE |
1.48 |
32.3 ± 7.5a,b |
0/14 |
|
52.2 ± 9.2a |
0/12 |
2.1-2.4 µm |
|
A-PR |
0.41 |
18.6 ± 7.9c |
0/12 |
|
17.8 ± 5.2b |
2/12 |
1.7-4.5 µm |
|
C-SE |
1.92 |
29.8 ± 7.3b |
0/10 |
|
48.1 ± 11.5a |
0/12 |
0.7-1 µm |
|
O-FL |
1.78 |
41.1 ± 10.3a |
0/11 |
|
47.3 ± 13.1a |
0/12 |
4-5 µm |
*ptf/n = Pre-testing failures/ number of samples; Means with the same superscript are not statistically significant different (p<0.05, Tukey HSD).
At enamel, O-SE performed equally well as both control adhesives, while A-PR was the only adhesive that bonded less effective than both controls. At dentin, again O-SE performed equally well as both control adhesives, while A-SE and A-PR bonded less effective. Interface characterization revealed that A-PR is a ‘strong’ self-etch adhesive because its hybrid layer dimension and morphology resembled that of the total-etch adhesive O-FL. A-SE and O-SE presented with an ‘intermediary’ etching effect; Their hybrid layer comprised a completely demineralised top area and a partially demineralised base. Conclusion: The bonding effectiveness and interfacial interaction differed substantially among the new self-adhesives investigated.