Bonding Performance of Universal Adhesives to Eroded Dentin.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the microtensile bond strength (µTBS) and nanoleakage (NL) of several universal adhesives to eroded dentin (ED), using etch-and-rinse (ER) or self-etch (SE) strategies, and to characterize the surface using two pH cycling models to erode dentin (citric acid and a soft drink). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Molars were eroded either by soft-drink or citric acid cycling, or were left untreated as control (SD). For each surface, the following adhesives were applied: 1. All-Bond Universal; 2. Ambar Universal; 3. Clearfil Universal; 4. Futurabond U; 5. One Coat 7 Universal; 6. Peak Universal Bond; 7. Prime&Bond Elect; 8. Scotchbond Universal; 9. Tetric n-bond Universal, and 10. Xeno Select. After application of the composite, specimens were sectioned into composite-dentin sticks and tested under tension (0.5 mm/min). Selected sticks from each tooth were used to assess NL. The occlusal dentin surfaces after erosive cycling were examined using SEM. Data were analyzed by three-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc test (a = 0.05). RESULTS: In ED, there was no difference in µTBS and NL between ER and SE strategies (p > 0.61). Most µTBS and NL values obtained for ED were, respectively, lower and higher than those for SD (p < 0.01), being worse for citric acid ED (p < 0.001). Citric-acid-eroded dentin showed more enlarged tubules, with partial loss of peritubular dentin when compared to soft-drink eroded dentin. CONCLUSION: The different pH cycling models reduced µTBS and increased NL of the composite/eroded-dentin interface; however, in ED, the performance of the universal adhesives did not depend on the adhesive strategy used.

Effect of MDP-containing Silane and Adhesive Used Alone or in Combination on the Long-term Bond Strength and Chemical Interaction with Lithium Disilicate Ceramics.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of a silane and an adhesive containing MDP, used alone or combined in the same solution, on the microshear bond strength (µSBS) to lithium disilicate ceramics immediately and after 1-year water storage, and compare the bond strength results with the Raman spectra of the treated lithium disilicate surfaces. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 30 CAD/CAM blocks of lithium disilicate (LD; IPS e.max CAD) were cut into four square sections (6 x 6 x 6 mm; n = 60 per group) and processed as recommended by the manufacturer. The LD specimens were divided into 12 groups according to the following independent variables: silane coupling agent (no silane; silane without 10-MDP [MBS, Monobond S]; silane with 10-MDP [MB+, Monobond Plus]) and adhesive + luting composite (no adhesive + Enforce; no adhesive + RelyX Ultimate; Prime & Bond Elect [PBE], a silane- and MDP-free universal adhesive + Enforce; Scotchbond Universal Adhesive [SBU], a silane- and MDP-containing universal adhesive + RelyX Ultimate). After each treatment, cylindrical, transparent matrices were filled with a luting composite and light cured. Specimens were stored in water (37°C for 24 h or 1 year) and submitted to the microshear bond strength (µSBS) test. The failure pattern and µSBS were statistically evaluated (α = 0.05). In addition, specimens were examined for chemical interaction using Raman spectroscopy. RESULTS: The use of the adhesive PBE alone showed higher mean µSBS compared with both groups with silane (MSB or MB+) without PBE (p < 0.001) at 24 h. The use of the SBU adhesive or MBS silane alone, as well as MB+ associated with SBU, showed higher mean µSBS (p < 0.001) at 24 h. After 1-year water storage, all groups showed a significant decrease in mean µSBS. However, the application of PBE or SBU associated with MB+ silane showed higher 1-year mean µSBS (p < 0.001). In terms of chemical interaction, when silane (MSB or MB+) was applied, only a slight decrease of Si-O peaks occurred. Otherwise, when PBE or SBU adhesives were applied, methacrylate peaks were only observed in the SBU groups. CONCLUSION: The best results in terms of bond strength after water storage were obtained when an MDP-containing silane was associated with a universal adhesive. The use of a simplified bonding protocol that includes either a silane or a universal adhesive is not recommended.

Laboratory Performance of Universal Adhesive Systems for Luting CAD/CAM Restorative Materials.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the microshear bond strength (µSBS) of several universal adhesive systems applied on five different indirect restorative materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five CAD/CAM materials were selected: 1) indirect resin composite (LAV); 2) feldspathic glass ceramic (VTR); 3) leucite-reinforced glass-ceramic (EMP); 4) lithium disilicate ceramic (EMX); 5) yttrium-stabilized zirconium dioxide (CZI). For each material, 15 blocks were cut into 4 rectangular sections (6 × 6 × 6 mm) (n = 60 per group), and processed as recommended by the respective manufacturer. For each indirect material, the following adhesive systems were applied according to the respective manufacturer's instructions: 1) AdheSE Universal [ADU]; 2) All-Bond Universal (ABU); 3) Ambar Universal (AMB); 4) Clearfil Universal (CFU); 5) Futurabond U (FBU); 6) One Coat 7 Universal (OCU); 7) Peak Universal Bond (PUB); 8) Prime&Bond Elect (PBE); 9) Scotchbond Universal Adhesive (SBU); 10) Xeno Select (XEN, negative control). After the application of the adhesive system, cylinder-shaped transparent matrices were filled with a dual-curing resin cement (NX3) and light cured. Specimens were stored in water (37°C for 24 h) and tested in shear mode at 1.0 mm/min (mSBS). The failure pattern and µSBS were statistically evaluated (a = 0.05). RESULTS: LAV, VTR, and EMP showed a greater number of cohesive fractures than EMX and CZI (p < 0.0001). PUB was the only adhesive for which the mean µSBS reached the highest ranking of statistical significance for all five substrates. When each adhesive was compared across the five substrates, 8 out of 10 (ADU, ABU, AMB, CFU, OCU, PUB, PBE, and SBU) reached the statistically highest mean µSBS when applied on CZI. CONCLUSION: The specific chemical composition of universal adhesives was not the decisive factor in the bond strength values measured for different CAD/CAM indirect materials. There was a wide variability in mean µSBS when different universal adhesives were applied to the several CAD/CAM indirect materials. Most universal adhesives bonded well to air-abraded zirconia.