Effect of additional coating of bonding resin on the microtensile bond strength of self-etching adhesives to dentin / 대한치과보존학회지

This study investigated the hypothesis that the dentin bond strength of self-etching adhesive (SEA) might be improved by applying additional layer of bonding resin that might alleviate the pH difference between the SEA and the restorative composite resin. Two SEAs were used in this study; Experimental SEA (Exp, pH: 1.96) and Adper Prompt (AP, 3M ESPE, USA, pH: 1.0). In the control groups, they were applied with two sequential coats. In the experimental groups, after applying the first coat of assigned SEAs, the D/E bonding resin of All-Bond 2 (Bisco Inc., USA, pH: 6.9) was applied as the intermediate adhesive. Z-250 (3M ESPE, USA) composite resin was built-up in order to prepare hourglass-shaped specimens. The microtensile bond strength (MTBS) was measured and the effect of the intermediate layer on the bond strength was analyzed for each SEA using t-test. The fracture mode of each specimen was inspected using stereomicroscope and Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope (FE-SEM). When D/E bonding resin was applied as the second coat, MTBS was significantly higher than that of the control groups. The incidence of the failure between the adhesive and the composite or between the adhesive and dentin decreased and that of the failure within the adhesive layer increased. According to the results, applying the bonding resin of neutral pH can increase the bond strength of SEAs by alleviating the difference in acidity between the SEA and restorative composite resin.

Prospective clinical evaluation of three different bonding systems in class V resin restorations with or without mechanical retention / 대한치과보존학회지

The purpose of this study is to evaluate prospectively the effect of different bonding systems and retention grooves on the clinical performance of resin restorations in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs). Thirty-nine healthy adults who had at least 2 NCCLs in their premolar areas were included in this study. One hundred and fifty teeth were equally assigned to six groups: (A) Scotchbond Multi-Purpose (SBMP, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA, 4th generation bonding system) without retention grooves; (B) SBMP with retention grooves; (C) BC Plus (Vericom Co., Anyang, Gyeonggido, Korea, 5th generation bonding system) without retention grooves; (D) BC Plus with retention grooves; (E) Adper Prompt (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany, 6th generation bonding system) without retention grooves; (F) Adper Prompt with retention grooves. All cavities were filled with a hybrid composite resin, Denfil (Vericom Co., Anyang, Gyeonggido, Korea) by one operator. Restorations were evaluated at baseline and at 6-month recall, according to the modified USPHS (United States Public Health Service) criteria. Additionally, clinical photographs were taken and epoxy resin replicas were made for SEM evaluation. At 6-month recall, there were some differences in the number of alpha ratings among the experimental groups. But, despite the differences in the number of alpha ratings, there was no significant difference among the 3 adhesive systems (p > 0.05). There was also no significant difference between the groups with or without mechanical retention (p > 0.05). Follow-ups for longer periods than 6 months are needed to verify the clinical performance of different bonding systems and retention grooves.