Effects of Different Tooth Conditioners on the Bonding of Universal Self-etching Adhesive to Enamel.

IF 2.5 3区医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Journal of Adhesive Dentistry Pub Date : 2021-06-05 DOI:10.3290/j.jad.b1409311

Yuta Baba, Takaaki Sato, Tomohiro Takagaki, Martina Vicheva, Ayaka Sato, Masaomi Ikeda, Toru Nikaido, Junji Tagami

{"title":"Effects of Different Tooth Conditioners on the Bonding of Universal Self-etching Adhesive to Enamel.","authors":"Yuta Baba, Takaaki Sato, Tomohiro Takagaki, Martina Vicheva, Ayaka Sato, Masaomi Ikeda, Toru Nikaido, Junji Tagami","doi":"10.3290/j.jad.b1409311","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To investigate the effects of several etching products prior to the application of a one-step self-etch adhesive (1-SEA) or two-step self-etch adhesive (2-SEA) on enamel by microshear bond strength (µSBS) testing and observation of the adhesive-enamel interface.Materials and methods: Ground human enamel surfaces were randomly assigned to one of eight groups according to the combination of surface treatments (either no conditioner [NC], ME [Multi Etchant], EC [Enamel Conditioner], or KE [K-etchant Gel]) and adhesive (ADU [Adhese Universal] or SE2 [Clearfil SE Bond 2]). All groups were further divided into two subgroups: 0 or 10,000 thermal cycles (TC). Then, the µSBS test was performed. The adhesive-enamel interface after acid-base challenge and the surface structure after conditioner application were also observed.Results: With 10,000 TCs, there was no statistically significant difference between ME-ADU and NC-ADU. On the other hand, the µSBS of EC-ADU or KE-ADU was significantly higher than that of NC-ADU, while that of ME-SE2 was significantly lower than NC-SE2. There was no significant difference between EC-SE2, NC-SE2, and KE-SE2. Formation of an acid-base resistance zone (ABRZ) was confirmed in all groups. However, funnel-shaped erosion, which indicates interfacial defects, was observed in the NC-ADU, ME-ADU, and ME-SE2 groups.Conclusion: For enamel bonding, application of EC or KE prior to ADU increased the bond strength and created a stable adhesive-enamel interface. On the other hand, SE2 also had stable shear bond strength and interface without the use of conditioners. However, ME decreased the bonding performance of SE2.","PeriodicalId":55604,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Adhesive Dentistry","volume":"23 3","pages":"233-242"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Adhesive Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.b1409311","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 3

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the effects of several etching products prior to the application of a one-step self-etch adhesive (1-SEA) or two-step self-etch adhesive (2-SEA) on enamel by microshear bond strength (µSBS) testing and observation of the adhesive-enamel interface.

Materials and methods: Ground human enamel surfaces were randomly assigned to one of eight groups according to the combination of surface treatments (either no conditioner [NC], ME [Multi Etchant], EC [Enamel Conditioner], or KE [K-etchant Gel]) and adhesive (ADU [Adhese Universal] or SE2 [Clearfil SE Bond 2]). All groups were further divided into two subgroups: 0 or 10,000 thermal cycles (TC). Then, the µSBS test was performed. The adhesive-enamel interface after acid-base challenge and the surface structure after conditioner application were also observed.

Results: With 10,000 TCs, there was no statistically significant difference between ME-ADU and NC-ADU. On the other hand, the µSBS of EC-ADU or KE-ADU was significantly higher than that of NC-ADU, while that of ME-SE2 was significantly lower than NC-SE2. There was no significant difference between EC-SE2, NC-SE2, and KE-SE2. Formation of an acid-base resistance zone (ABRZ) was confirmed in all groups. However, funnel-shaped erosion, which indicates interfacial defects, was observed in the NC-ADU, ME-ADU, and ME-SE2 groups.

Conclusion: For enamel bonding, application of EC or KE prior to ADU increased the bond strength and created a stable adhesive-enamel interface. On the other hand, SE2 also had stable shear bond strength and interface without the use of conditioners. However, ME decreased the bonding performance of SE2.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

不同牙齿调理剂对通用自蚀刻胶与牙釉质粘接的影响。

目的:通过微剪切粘接强度(µSBS)测试和粘接-牙釉质界面观察，探讨一步自蚀胶(1-SEA)或两步自蚀胶(2-SEA)应用前几种蚀刻产品对牙釉质的影响。材料和方法:根据表面处理(无调理剂[NC]、ME [Multi Etchant]、EC[珐琅调理剂]或KE [K-etchant凝胶])和粘合剂(ADU [Adhese Universal]或SE2 [Clearfil SE Bond 2])的组合，将磨好的人类牙釉质表面随机分为八组。所有组进一步分为两个亚组:0或10,000热循环(TC)。然后进行µSBS测试。同时观察了酸碱侵蚀后的黏合剂-牙釉质界面和调理剂作用后的表面结构。结果:在1万次TCs中，ME-ADU与NC-ADU的差异无统计学意义。另一方面，EC-ADU和KE-ADU的µSBS显著高于of NC-ADU, ME-SE2的µSBS显著低于NC-SE2。EC-SE2、NC-SE2、KE-SE2差异无统计学意义。结果表明，各组均形成了耐酸碱区(ABRZ)。然而，在NC-ADU, ME-ADU和ME-SE2组中观察到漏斗状侵蚀，这表明界面缺陷。结论:对于牙釉质的粘接，在ADU之前应用EC或KE可以提高牙釉质的粘接强度，形成稳定的粘接剂-牙釉质界面。另一方面，在不使用调理剂的情况下，SE2也具有稳定的剪切粘结强度和界面。然而，ME降低了SE2的键合性能。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 医学-牙科与口腔外科

CiteScore

5.20

自引率

6.10%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： New materials and applications for adhesion are profoundly changing the way dentistry is delivered. Bonding techniques, which have long been restricted to the tooth hard tissues, enamel, and dentin, have obvious applications in operative and preventive dentistry, as well as in esthetic and pediatric dentistry, prosthodontics, and orthodontics. The current development of adhesive techniques for soft tissues and slow-releasing agents will expand applications to include periodontics and oral surgery. Scientifically sound, peer-reviewed articles explore the latest innovations in these emerging fields.