• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.31 no.6
• /
• pp.415-426
• /
• 2006

In this study, the changes in the degree of conversion (DC) and the microtensile bond strength (MTBS) of self-etching adhesives to dentin was investigated according to the time after curing. The MTBS of Single Bond (SB, 3M ESPE, USA), Clearfil SE Bond (SE, Kuraray, Japan), Xeno-III (XIII, Dentsply, Germany), and Adper Prompt (AP, 3M ESPE, USA) were measured at 48h, at 1 week and after thermocycling for 5,000 cycles between 5$^{\circ}$C and 55$^{\circ}$C. The DC of the adhesives were measured immediately, at 48h and at 7 days after curing using a Fourier Transform Infra-red Spectrometer. The fractured surfaces were also evaluated with scanning electron microscope. The MTBS and DC were significantly increased with time and there was an interaction between the variables of time and material (MTBS, 2-way ANOVA, p = 0.018; DC, Repeated Measures ANOVA, p < 0.001). The low DC was suggested as a cause of the low MTBS of self-etching adhesives, XIII and AP, but the increase in the MTBS of SE and AP after 48h could not be related with the changes in the DC. The microscopic maturation of the adhesive layer might be considered as the cause of increasing bond strength.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.90-97
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of passive or active application of primer and coat times of bond on the shear bond strength when a self-etching primer adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond) was applied to enamel surface. Crowns of sixteen human molars were selected. Buccal and lingual enamels of crowns were partially exposed and slabs of 1.2 mm thick were made. They were divided into one of four equal groups (n = 8). Group 1: passive application of Primer and 1 coat of Bond, Group 2: active application of Primer and 1 coat of Bond, Group 3: passive application of Primer and 2 coats of Bond, Group 4: active application of Primer and 2 coats of Bond. Clearfil AP-X was bonded to enamel suface of each group using Tygon tubes. The bonded specimens were subjected to microshear bond strength (uSBS) testing with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The results of this study were as follows; 1. The uSBS of Group 1 was the lowest among groups and the uSBS of Group 4 was the highest. 2. There was not statistically significant interaction between enamel uSBS by application method of Primer and coat time of Bond (p > 0.05). 3. There was not statistically significant difference between enamel uSBS by passive and active application of Primer (p > 0.05). 4. There was statistically significant difference between enamel uSBS by one- and two-coat of Bond (p < 0.05).

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.34-43
• /
• 2002

The purpose of this study was to compare microleakage and marginal hybrid layer in class V restorations using two one-bottle adhesives and one self-etching adhesive. Class V cavity preparations with occlusal margins in enamel and gingival margins in dentin were pre-pared on buccal and lingual surfaces of 30 extracted human molar teeth. Prepared teeth were randomly divided into three treatment groups (n=30) and restored with three adhesives and composites: Single Bond/Filtek Z-250 (Group 1), Prime&BondNT/Esthet.X (Group 2), UniFil Bond/UniFil F (Group 3). For microleakage, samples were stored in room temperature water for 24 hours, thermocycled stained with 2% methylene blue dye, sectioned into halves, scored and analysed using Mann-whitney test and Wilcoxon signed rank sum test. For marginal hybrid layer, samples were sectioned into halves, treated with 10% phosphoric acid for 5 seconds, stored in 5% NaOCL solution for 24 hours, dried and gold coated. Occlusal and gingival margins of each sample were inspected under SEM. The results of this study were as follows ; 1. Microleakage at the occlusal margins was not evident in group 1 and group 2, but it showed in group 3 (p<0.05). 2. Microleakage in group 1 and group 3 was significantly lower than in group 2 at gingival margins (p<0.05). 3. Microleakage at gingival margins was greater than at occlusal margins in group 1 and group 2, but microleakage at occlusal margins was greater than at gingival margins in group 3 (p<0.05). 4. In group 1 and group 2, no gaps at occlusal margins showed. But gaps showed in group 3. Occlusal margins were free from a hybrid layer in all groups 5. The thickness of the marginal hybrid layers was 2.5~5 $\mu\textrm{m}$ thick in group 5 $\mu\textrm{m}$ thick in group 2 and 1.5 $\mu\textrm{m}$ thick in group 3. 6 There was no corelation between microleakage and thickness of marginal hybrid layer. In coclusion, the effect of dentin adhesives on microleakge in class V composite restorations was excellent when one-bottle adhesives were applied on enamel margin, and it was good when a self-etching adhesive was applied on dentinal margin. There was no corelation between microleakage and thickness of marginal hybrid layer.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.36 no.3
• /
• pp.203-210
• /
• 2011

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of various application methods of one-step self-etch adhesives to microtensile resin-dentin bond strength. Materials and Methods: Thirty-six extracted human molars were used. The teeth were assigned randomly to twelve groups (n = 15), according to the three different adhesive systems (Clearfil Tri-S Bond, Adper Prompt L-Pop, G-Bond) and application methods. The adhesive systems were applied on the dentin as follows: 1) The single coating, 2) The double coating, 3) Manual agitation, 4) Ultrasonic agitation. Following the adhesive application, light-cure composite resin was constructed. The restored teeth were stored in distilled water at room temperature for 24 hours, and prepared 15 specimens per groups. Then microtensile bond strength was measured and the failure mode was examined. Results: Manual agitation and ultrasonic agitation of adhesive significantly increased the microtensile bond strength than single coating and double coating did. Double coating of adhesive significantly increased the microtensile bond strength than single coating did and there was no significant difference between the manual agitation and ultrasonic agitation group. There was significant difference in microtensile bonding strength among all adhesives and Clearfil Tri-S Bond showed the highest bond strength. Conclusions: In one-step self-etching adhesives, there was significant difference according to application methods and type of adhesives. No matter of the material, the manual or ultrasonic agitation of the adhesive showed significantly higher microtensile bond strength.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.34 no.3
• /
• pp.184-191
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the physical properties of different self-adhesive resin cements and their shear bond strength on dentin and lithium disilicate ceramic and compare these result with that of conventional resin cement. For this study, four self-adhesive resin cements (Rely-X Unicem, Embrace Wetbond, Mexcem, BisCem), one conventional resin cement (Rely-X ARC) and one restorative resin composite (Z-350) were used. In order to evaluate the physical properties, compressive strength, diametral tensile strength and flexural strength were measured. To evaluate the shear bond strength on dentin, each cement was adhered to buccal dentinal surface of extracted human lower molars. Dentin bonding agent was applied after acid etching for groups of Rely-X ARC and Z-350. In order to evaluate the shear bond strength on ceramic, lithium disilicate glass ceramic (IPS Empress 2) disks were prepared. Only Rely-X ARC and Z-350 groups were pretreated with hydrofluoric acid and silane. And then each resin cement was adhered to ceramic surface in 2 mm diameter. Physical properties and shear bond strengths were measured using a universal testing machine. Results were as follows 1. BisCem showed the lowest compressive strength, diametral tensile strength and flexural strength. (P<0.05) 2. Self-adhesive resin cements showed significantly lower shear bond strength on the dentin and lithium disilicate ceramic than Rely-X ARC and Z-350 (P<0.05) In conclusion, self-adhesive resin cements represent the lower physical properties and shear bond strength than a conventional resin cement.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.105-112
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the contact angle made by 3 kinds of self etching primers (Clearfil SE Bond, AdheSE, and Tyrian) on dentin and to measure the microtensile bond strength of resin composite to dentin using these self-etching primers. Contact angle between each of 3 self etching primers and polished dentin surface was measured (n=30) by contact angle analyzer and the result was analyzed by One-way ANOVA. For the measurement of microtensile bond strength, polished dentin surface was treated with each of 3 self etching primers and dentin adhesives. Z-250 composite resin was built-up with a height of 5 mm on the adhesive-treated surface and light cured for 40s with a halogen light curing unit. Thereafter, each tooth was sectioned into slabs perpendicular to the bonded interface and trimmed (n=45). The microtensile bond strength was measured with universal testing machine and the result was analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis test. AdheSE group showed the highest contact angle followed by Clearfil SE group and Tyrian group (p<0.05). AdheSE group and Clearfil SE group showed significantly higher microtensile bond strength than Tyrian group (P<0.05).

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.9 no.4
• /
• pp.257-264
• /
• 2017

PURPOSE. To evaluate the adhesion to CAD/CAM feldspathic blocks by failure analysis and shear bond strength test (SBSt) of different restorative systems and different surface treatments, for purpose of moderate chipping repair. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A self-adhering flowable composite (Vertise Flow, Kerr) containing bi-functional phosphate monomers and a conventional flowable resin composite (Premise Flow, Kerr) applied with and without adhesive system (Optibond Solo Plus, Kerr) were combined with three different surface treatments (Hydrofluoric Acid Etching, Sandblasting, combination of both) for repairing feldspathic ceramics. Two commercial systems for ceramic repairing were tested as controls (Porcelain Repair Kit, Ultradent, and CoJet System, 3M). SBSt was performed and failure mode was evaluated using a digital microscope. A One-Way ANOVA (Tukey test for post hoc) was applied to the SBSt data and the Fisher's Exact Test was applied to the failure analysis data. RESULTS. The use of resin systems containing bi-functional phosphate monomers combined with hydrofluoric acid etching of the ceramic surface gave the highest values in terms of bond strength and of more favorable failure modalities. CONCLUSION. The simplified repairing method based on self-adhering flowable resin combined with the use of hydrofluoric acid etching showed high bond strength values and a favorable failure mode. Repairing of ceramic chipping with a self-adhering flowable resin associated with hydrofluoric acid etching showed high bond strength with a less time consuming and technique-sensitive procedure compared to standard procedure.

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.36 no.6
• /
• pp.422-433
• /
• 2006

Objective: Several ions and components are released from self-etching primers in the oral cavity. This may cause injury to the periodontal tissues throughout orthodontic treatment. The purpose of this study was to assess the cytotoxicity of self-etching primers to HGF-1, HaCaT, and RHEK cells. Method: Transbond XT Primer (3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA), and self-etching primers, Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray, Osaka, Japan), Transbond Plus SEP (3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA), and Adper Prompt L-Pop (3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA), were evaluated by MTT assay, and cellular changes were also observed. Results: In all cells after 72 hours with all primers, severe morphological changes such as atrophy and necrosis were observed. In the MTT assay using HGF-1, Clearfil SE Bond, Transbond XT Primer, Transbond Plus SEP, and Adper Prompt L-Pop were lined up in order of ascending cytotoxicity When using HaCaT, Clearfil SE Bond, Adper Prompt L-Pop, Transbond Plus SEP, and Transbond XT Primer were lined up in order of ascending cytotoxicity. When using RHEK, Clearfil SE Bond, Transbond XT Primer, Adper Prompt L-Pop, and Transbond Plus SEP were lined up in order of ascending cytotoxicity. Conclusion: The result of this study shows that care is needed because self-etching primers show cytotoxic properties similar to conventional primers.

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.40 no.4
• /
• pp.260-266
• /
• 2010

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine whether different types of adhesive systems and enamel-protective agents will affect the tensile bond strength of lingual brackets. Methods: A total of 75 extracted mandibular incisors were randomly divided into 5 groups and lingual brackets were bonded. Group 1 specimens received Transbond XT (3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA), Group 2 required the application of a fluoride-releasing resin (Ortho-coat, Pulpdent, Watertown, MA, USA) with Transbond XT, Group 3 specimens received a chlorhexidine varnish (Cervitec Plus, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Lichtenstein) with Transbond XT. In Group 4, a light-cured orthodontic adhesive (Aegis Ortho, Bosworth, Skokie, USA) was applied and in Group 5, an antimicrobial self-etching primer (Clearfil Protect Bond, Kuraray, Osaka, Japan) was used. Results: There were no significant differences in bond strength whether fluoride-releasing resin or chlorhexidine varnish were used or not. Group 5 had significantly higher bond strength and adhesive remnant index (ARI) values than other groups (p < 0.001). The application of enamel-protective products did not have an adverse affect on the bond strength of lingual brackets. Conclusions: These products might provide benefits both for the patient and the clinician, by supporting the oral hygiene during lingual orthodontic treatment. The higher ARI score may be beneficial for Clearfil Protect Bond but its excessive bond strength should be considered in clinical practice, especially where the enamel is thin.

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.40 no.5
• /
• pp.342-348
• /
• 2010

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the shear bond strengths (SBS) of orthodontic brackets bonded to enamel with a self-etching primer after bleaching, desensitizer application and combined treatment. Methods: Forty-eight premolars were randomly divided into four groups, each with n = 12 premolar samples. The four groups were; Group1: 15% hydrogen-peroxide office bleaching agent (Illumin$\acute{e}$ Office-IO), Group 2: IO + BisBlock Oxalate Dentin-Desensitizer, Group 3: Bis Block Oxalate Dentin-Desensitizer, Group 4: No treatment (control). Twenty-four hours after bonding, the specimens were tested in SBS at a crosshead speed of 5 mm/min until the brackets debonded. The failure mode of the brackets was determined by a modified adhesive remnant index. Results: Bleaching, bleaching and desensitizer treatment, and desensitizer treatment alone all significantly reduced SBS of the orthodontic brackets ($p$ = 0.001). No statistically significant difference was found between Group 1, Group 2 and Group 3 (Group 1-Group 2, $p$ = 0.564; Group 1-Group 3, $p$ = 0.371; Group 2-Group 3, $p$ = 0.133). The predominant mode of failure for the treatment groups (Group1, Group 2 and Group 3) was at the enamel-adhesive interface leaving 100% of the adhesive on the bracket base. Conclusions: Bleaching and desensitizer treatment should be delayed until the completion of orthodontic treatment.