IADR Abstract Archives
Bonding Survival Probability of a New Universal Adhesive
Objectives: To evaluate the survival probability of a recently marketed universal adhesive bonded to dentin in both self-etch (SE) and, etch-and-rinse (ER) mode, compared to its predecessor adhesive based on conventional (C-μTBST) and, double-sided microtensile bond strength test (D-μTBST) and, adhesive thickness.
Methods: Occlusal dentin of 12 sound human molars were exposed, ground with 600-grit SiC, and distributed into four groups (n=3) based on the adhesives (Scotchbond Universal Plus Adhesive [SP] and, Scotchbond Universal Adhesive [SB]; 3M™) and application modes (SE, ER), followed by resin-composite build-ups. The bonded dentin specimens were cut into sticks for C-μTBST and slices for assessing adhesive thickness with SEM. For D-μTBST, 1mm thick dentin discs with exposed dentin on both sides, were obtained from the occlusal portion of another 12 molars were ground with 600-grit SiC and, alternatively received either of the six ‘adhesive-application mode/side’ combinations (n=3): SP-SE/SP-ER, SP-SE/SB-SE, SP-SE/SB-ER, SP-ER/SB-SE, SP-ER/SB-ER, SB-SE/SB-ER, followed by resin-composite build-ups. Sticks cut from the bonded dentin discs were stressed to failure, considering only the adhesive-failed events for survival analysis. The failure patterns were identified with a stereomicroscope.
Results: C-μTBST showed no statistical difference in bond strength values (p>0.05;Tukey’s test) with a predominance of non-adhesive failures, indicating strong dentin bonding ability of the adhesives. While SP-SE and SB-ER showed a similar adhesive thickness (6μm), SB-SE was the thickest (8μm) and, SP-ER the thinnest (3μm). Kaplan-Meir survival analysis followed by Mantel-Cox log-rank test of the D-μTBST data revealed significantly higher survival probability for SB-ER, especially when compared to SP-SE (χ2(3) = 8.811, p = 0.003) and SP-ER (χ2(3) = 12.159, p<0.001).
Conclusions: Dentin bonding efficacy of both adhesives in either application mode was similar for C-µTBST. Adhesive thickness of SB was higher than SP in same application mode. Survival rate of SB applied in ER mode was superior to SP for D-µTBST.
Methods: Occlusal dentin of 12 sound human molars were exposed, ground with 600-grit SiC, and distributed into four groups (n=3) based on the adhesives (Scotchbond Universal Plus Adhesive [SP] and, Scotchbond Universal Adhesive [SB]; 3M™) and application modes (SE, ER), followed by resin-composite build-ups. The bonded dentin specimens were cut into sticks for C-μTBST and slices for assessing adhesive thickness with SEM. For D-μTBST, 1mm thick dentin discs with exposed dentin on both sides, were obtained from the occlusal portion of another 12 molars were ground with 600-grit SiC and, alternatively received either of the six ‘adhesive-application mode/side’ combinations (n=3): SP-SE/SP-ER, SP-SE/SB-SE, SP-SE/SB-ER, SP-ER/SB-SE, SP-ER/SB-ER, SB-SE/SB-ER, followed by resin-composite build-ups. Sticks cut from the bonded dentin discs were stressed to failure, considering only the adhesive-failed events for survival analysis. The failure patterns were identified with a stereomicroscope.
Results: C-μTBST showed no statistical difference in bond strength values (p>0.05;Tukey’s test) with a predominance of non-adhesive failures, indicating strong dentin bonding ability of the adhesives. While SP-SE and SB-ER showed a similar adhesive thickness (6μm), SB-SE was the thickest (8μm) and, SP-ER the thinnest (3μm). Kaplan-Meir survival analysis followed by Mantel-Cox log-rank test of the D-μTBST data revealed significantly higher survival probability for SB-ER, especially when compared to SP-SE (χ2(3) = 8.811, p = 0.003) and SP-ER (χ2(3) = 12.159, p<0.001).
Conclusions: Dentin bonding efficacy of both adhesives in either application mode was similar for C-µTBST. Adhesive thickness of SB was higher than SP in same application mode. Survival rate of SB applied in ER mode was superior to SP for D-µTBST.