Bond strength of two universal adhesive systems to human dentin using different strategies.

Daniel Jb Dutra, Natalia Tt Branco, Hugo H Alvim, Cláudia S Magalhães, Ricardo R Oliveira, Allyson N Moreira
{"title":"Bond strength of two universal adhesive systems to human dentin using different strategies.","authors":"Daniel Jb Dutra,&nbsp;Natalia Tt Branco,&nbsp;Hugo H Alvim,&nbsp;Cláudia S Magalhães,&nbsp;Ricardo R Oliveira,&nbsp;Allyson N Moreira","doi":"10.54589/aol.35/3/155","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The objective of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) to dentin of two universal adhesive systems: Single Bond Universal (SBU) and Ambar Universal (AU), used in different adhesion strategies.</p><p><strong>Materials and method: </strong>Thirty-six human teeth were prepared (n=6) and treated following different adhesive strategies: G1: SBU-etch-and-rinse, applied on dry dentin; G2: SBUetch- and-rinse, applied on moist dentin; G3: SBU-self-etching; G4: AU-etch-and-rinse, applied on dry dentin; G5: AU-etch-and-rinse, applied on moist dentin; G6: AU-self-etching. The specimens were submitted to μTBS test, failure analysis, and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Data were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey's tests (p<0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Microtensile bond strength was significantly lower in G1 than G2 and G3. AU adhesive performed worse than the SBU system, except in G5. Cohesive and mixed failures predominated in G1 and G2, while adhesive failures predominated in G3 and G5.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Universal adhesives are an interesting innovation, but there are still doubts about their performance, mainly regarding the different protocols provided by the manufacturers. The conventional adhesive strategy on moist dentin demonstrated higher μTBS for both adhesives. The use of the selfetching strategy with the SBU showed promising results.</p>","PeriodicalId":7033,"journal":{"name":"Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/1e/c3/1852-4834-35-3-155.PMC10283391.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54589/aol.35/3/155","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) to dentin of two universal adhesive systems: Single Bond Universal (SBU) and Ambar Universal (AU), used in different adhesion strategies.

Materials and method: Thirty-six human teeth were prepared (n=6) and treated following different adhesive strategies: G1: SBU-etch-and-rinse, applied on dry dentin; G2: SBUetch- and-rinse, applied on moist dentin; G3: SBU-self-etching; G4: AU-etch-and-rinse, applied on dry dentin; G5: AU-etch-and-rinse, applied on moist dentin; G6: AU-self-etching. The specimens were submitted to μTBS test, failure analysis, and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Data were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey's tests (p<0.05).

Results: Microtensile bond strength was significantly lower in G1 than G2 and G3. AU adhesive performed worse than the SBU system, except in G5. Cohesive and mixed failures predominated in G1 and G2, while adhesive failures predominated in G3 and G5.

Conclusions: Universal adhesives are an interesting innovation, but there are still doubts about their performance, mainly regarding the different protocols provided by the manufacturers. The conventional adhesive strategy on moist dentin demonstrated higher μTBS for both adhesives. The use of the selfetching strategy with the SBU showed promising results.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

两种通用胶粘剂系统在不同策略下与人牙本质的结合强度。
研究了两种通用胶粘剂体系(Single bond universal, SBU)和Ambar universal (Ambar universal, AU)在不同粘接策略下对牙本质的微拉伸粘接强度(μTBS)。材料和方法:制备36颗人牙(n=6),采用不同的粘接剂策略进行处理:G1: sbu -蚀刻-冲洗,涂在干牙本质上;G2:涂抹并冲洗,涂抹在湿润的牙本质上;G3: SBU-self-etching;G4: au蚀刻冲洗,用于干燥的牙本质;G5: au蚀刻和冲洗,适用于湿润的牙本质;G6: AU-self-etching。试样进行了μTBS测试、失效分析和扫描电镜(SEM)分析。数据分析采用方差分析和Tukey检验(结果:G1组微拉伸粘结强度明显低于G2和G3组。除G5外,AU胶粘剂的表现比SBU系统差。G1和G2以粘接和混合失效为主,G3和G5以粘接失效为主。结论:通用胶粘剂是一项有趣的创新,但其性能仍然存在疑问,主要是关于制造商提供的不同协议。在湿润牙本质上采用常规胶粘剂策略,两种胶粘剂的μTBS均较高。在SBU中使用自取策略显示了令人满意的结果。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信