Susceptibility of contemporary single-bottle self-etch dentine adhesives to intrinsic water permeation

• Published in: Journal of dentistry Vol. 66; pp. 52 - 61
• Main Authors: Pucci, Cesar R., Gu, Li-Sha, Zeng, Chang, Gou, Ya-Ping, Tay, Franklin R., Niu, Li-Na
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier Ltd 01.11.2017; Elsevier Limited
• Subjects: Acid Etching, Dental - methods; Adhesive bonding; Adhesive strength; Adhesives; Bond strength; Bonding strength; Collagen; Degradation; Dental Bonding - methods; Dental Materials - chemistry; Dental Pulp; Dental restorative materials; Dental Stress Analysis; Dentin; Dentin - drug effects; Dentin-Bonding Agents - chemistry; Dentine bonding agents; Dentine permeability; Dentistry; Etching; Humans; Hybrid layer; Hydrostatic Pressure; Materials Testing; Mechanical properties; Methacrylates - chemistry; Molar, Third; Penetration; Polyethylene; Polymerization; Polymethacrylic Acids - chemistry; Pressure; Pulpal pressure; Resin Cements - chemistry; Sensitivity; Solvents; Surface Properties; Teeth; Tensile Strength; Tricalcium silicate; Water; Water - chemistry; Degradation; Bond strength; Dentine permeability; Dentine bonding agents; Pulpal pressure; Hybrid layer
• ISSN: 0300-5712; 1879-176X
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.08.010

To evaluate the effect of intrinsic water permeation on the microtensile bond strengths of different adhesive systems to dentine and the quality of resin-dentine interfaces. Ninety-six non-carious human third molars were divided into 4 groups: Clearfil S3 Bond Plus (CSBP; Kuraray); Clearfil S3 Bond (C3S; Kuraray); iBond Self-Etch (IB; Heraeus-Kulzer) and Prime&Bond NT (PB, control etch-and-rinse adhesive, Dentply-Sirona). For each adhesive, specimens from one subgroup (N=10) were bonded using zero pulpal pressure, while specimens from the other subgroup (N=10) were bonded using 15cm water pressure (PP). Each bonded tooth was sectioned into 1×1mm sticks and stressed to failure. Data were analysed using two-way ANOVA and Holm-Sidak pairwise comparisons to examine the effects of “adhesive”, “pulpal pressure” and their interaction on bond strength (α=0.05). Representative fractured sticks were examined by SEM. The remaining tooth slabs in each subgroup were used for TEM and CLSM. Microtensile bond strengths (mean±SD; in MPa) were: 33.4±6.9 (CSBP), 33.2±4.7 (CSBP-PP), 35.0±8.6 (C3S), 25.5±7.3 (C3S-PP), 18.4±4.0 (IB), 16.5±6.9 (IB-PP), 28.2±5.5 (PB), 20.5±7.2 (PB-PP). “Adhesive-type” (P<0.001), “pulpal-pressure” (P<0.001) and their interactions (P<0.001) significantly affected bond strength results. No difference between no-PP and PP subgroups was found for CSBP and IB (P>0.05). Water droplets were identified along the resin-dentine interface for IB, IB-PP and C3S-PP. IB exhibits water sensitivity when bonding is performed with/without pulpal pressure. C3S exhibits water sensitivity when bonding is performed with pulpal pressure. CSBP does not exhibit water sensitivity when bonding is performed with/without pulpal pressure. Clinical significance: Intrinsic water permeation during bonding procedures significantly affects bond strength results and the resin-dentine interface of contemporary single-bottle self-etch dentine adhesive systems.