| µTBS | exp-Eth | exp -Ac | exp-Eth+UFB | iBond | Unifil Bond | Clearfil SE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enamel | 16.1±6.3a,b* n=33 | 15.4±8.6a,b# n=14 | 29.5±6.7b n=13 | 19.3±10.3a,b* n=12 | 14.5±6.0a* n=14 | 30.4±12.9a,b n=14 |
| Dentin | 20.2±6.2c n=29 | 20.7±4.9c n=14 | 27.6±11.5c,d n=11 | 11.1±8.6e§ n=14 | 30.4±12.9c,d n=14 | 39.6±5.4d n=12 |
*1 pre-testing failure (ptf); #2 ptf; §4 ptf; Different superscript letters indicate significant difference; Kruskal-Wallis test, p<0.05.
The lower bond strength of the 1-SEAs was associated with light-microscopic observation of multiple droplets that disappeared relatively slowly with time. Interfacial analysis confirmed the entrapment of droplets within the adhesive layer, especially adjacent to the hybrid layer. Conclusion: The prompt disappearance of droplets upon application of a HEMA-containing bonding agent (exp-Eth+UFB), and upon adding a little drop of pure HEMA, as well as the absence of HEMA in the 1-SEA formulations and the absence of droplets at the interface of all HEMA-containing 2-SEAs, strongly suggest that upon evaporation of ethanol/acetone the adhesive monomers within the 1-SEAs separated from water. Water droplets were formed and got entrapped within the adhesive resin upon polymerization.
Supported by FWO Flanders.