Influence of solvents and composition of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesive systems on the nanoleakage within the hybrid layer.

AIM: The goal of this study was to evaluate nanoleakage within the hybrid layer yielded by etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesive systems, with different solvents and compositions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four adhesives were applied onto 20 human dentin disks: group A: Adper Scotchbond 1XT(™) (3M ESPE), group B: One Coat Bond(®) (Coltène Whaledent), group C: AdheSE(®) (Ivoclar Vivadent) and group D: Xeno-V(®) (Dentsply). The samples were immersed in aqueous ammoniacal silver nitrate for 24 hour, prepared and observed under field-emission scanning electron microscopy with backscattered electrons. Microphotographs were scanned and data were processed. The mean value and standard deviation were calculated. Kruskal- Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests were used (p < 0.05). RESULTS: All the adhesives showed nanoleakage within the hybrid layer: Adper Scotchbond 1XT(™) (218.5 µm ± 52.6 µm), One Coat Bond(®) (139.6 µm ± 79.0 µm), AdheSE(®) (92.7 µm ± 64.8 µm) and Xeno-V(®) (251.0 µm ± 85.2 µm). AdheSE(®) yielded less nanoleakage than Adper Scotchbond-1XT(™) (p = 0.003) and than Xeno-V(®) (p = 0.007). No other statistically significant differences were detected. CONCLUSION: Two-step self-etch adhesive system (AdheSE(®)) might contribute for lower nanoleakage deposition and thus better performance in dentin adhesion. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The two-step self-etch adhesive system showed the lowest nanoleakage deposition compared with the other adhesive systems evaluated, which seems to indicate a better behavior when a restoration is performed in dentin and possibly can lead to a durable adhesion along time.

Effect of ozone gas on the shear bond strength to enamel.

UNLABELLED: Ozone is an important disinfecting agent, however its influence on enamel adhesion has not yet been clarified. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the influence of ozone pretreatment on the shear strength of an etch-and-rinse and a self-etch system to enamel and analyze the respective failure modes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty sound bovine incisors were used. Specimens were randomly assigned to four experimental groups (n=15): Group G1 (Excite® with ozone) and group G3 (AdheSE® with ozone) were prepared with ozone gas from the HealOzone unit (Kavo®) for 20 s prior to adhesion, and groups G2 (Excite®) and G4 (AdheSE®) were used as control. Teeth were bisected and polished to simulate a smear layer just before the application of the adhesive systems. The adhesives were applied according to the manufacturer's instructions to a standardized 3 mm diameter surface, and a composite (Synergy D6, Coltene Whaledent) cylinder with 2 mm increments was build. Specimens were stored in 100% humidity for 24 h at 37°C and then subjected to a thermal cycling regimen of 500 cycles. Shear bond tests were performed with a Watanabe device in a universal testing machine at 5 mm/min. The failure mode was analyzed under scanning electron microscope. Means and standard deviation of shear bond strength (SBS) were calculated and difference between the groups was analyzed using ANOVA, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Levene and Bonferroni. Chi-squared statistical tests were used to evaluate the failure modes. RESULTS: Mean bond strength values and failure modes were as follows: G1--26.85±6.18 MPa (33.3% of adhesive cohesive failure); G2--27.95±5.58 MPa (53.8% of adhesive failures between enamel and adhesive); G3--15.0±3.84 MPa (77.8% of adhesive failures between enamel and adhesive) and G4--13.1±3.68 MPa (36.4% of adhesive failures between enamel and adhesive). CONCLUSIONS: Shear bond strength values of both adhesives tested on enamel were not influenced by the previous application of ozone gas.