The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2009
Are one-step adhesives easier to use and better performing? Multifactorial assessment of contemporary one-step self-etching adhesives.
Сравнительное исследованиеОценочное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Van Landuyt Kirsten L, Mine Atsushi, De Munck Jan, Jaecques Siegfried, Peumans Marleen, Lambrechts Paul, Van Meerbeek Bart
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to examine whether one-step self-etching adhesives (1-SEAs) really have an advantage over multistep systems.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine one-step self-etching adhesives (Absolute, Adper Prompt L-Pop, Clearfil S3 Bond, G-Bond, Hybrid Bond, iBond, One-up Bond F Plus, Optibond All-in-one and Xeno III) were included in this study. One two-step self-etching adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond) and one three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (Optibond FL) served as controls. Their microtensile bond strength to bur-cut enamel and dentin was determined using a standardized protocol and the respective adhesive/dentin interface of these adhesives was characterized by transmission electron microscopy. Statistical analysis was performed with the Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test.
RESULTS: Regarding bond strength, the control adhesives tended to perform superior to the one-step adhesives. However, a significant difference between the control adhesives and some one-step adhesives could not always be demonstrated, partly due to the statistical setup of this study. Interface analysis by electron microscopy showed wide variation among the one-step adhesives, depending on their composition and their acidity. 1-SEAs also exhibited two different kinds of droplets, depending on their hydrophilicity. Hydrophobic HEMA-free 1-SEAs such as G-Bond were prone to phase separation, while especially HEMA-containing hydrophilic 1-SEAs, such as Clearfil S3 Bond and Xeno III were predisposed to forming osmosis-induced droplets. Hybrid bond, Absolute, and iBond featured both phase separation as well as osmosis. Optibond All-in-one exhibited a clustering reaction of the filler particles upon solvent evaporation. All adhesives including the control adhesives showed signs of nanoleakage, indicating that all adhesives are to some extent permeable to water. A definitive conclusion with regard to quantitative assessment of nanoleakage was much hindered by inconsistencies in the silver deposition. The application procedure of some 1-SEAs sometimes proved as elaborate and time consuming as those of the two-step adhesive Clearfil SE Bond.
CONCLUSION: Considering bond strength and application procedure, 1-SEAs are not always a better alternative to multistep adhesives.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine one-step self-etching adhesives (Absolute, Adper Prompt L-Pop, Clearfil S3 Bond, G-Bond, Hybrid Bond, iBond, One-up Bond F Plus, Optibond All-in-one and Xeno III) were included in this study. One two-step self-etching adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond) and one three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (Optibond FL) served as controls. Their microtensile bond strength to bur-cut enamel and dentin was determined using a standardized protocol and the respective adhesive/dentin interface of these adhesives was characterized by transmission electron microscopy. Statistical analysis was performed with the Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test.
RESULTS: Regarding bond strength, the control adhesives tended to perform superior to the one-step adhesives. However, a significant difference between the control adhesives and some one-step adhesives could not always be demonstrated, partly due to the statistical setup of this study. Interface analysis by electron microscopy showed wide variation among the one-step adhesives, depending on their composition and their acidity. 1-SEAs also exhibited two different kinds of droplets, depending on their hydrophilicity. Hydrophobic HEMA-free 1-SEAs such as G-Bond were prone to phase separation, while especially HEMA-containing hydrophilic 1-SEAs, such as Clearfil S3 Bond and Xeno III were predisposed to forming osmosis-induced droplets. Hybrid bond, Absolute, and iBond featured both phase separation as well as osmosis. Optibond All-in-one exhibited a clustering reaction of the filler particles upon solvent evaporation. All adhesives including the control adhesives showed signs of nanoleakage, indicating that all adhesives are to some extent permeable to water. A definitive conclusion with regard to quantitative assessment of nanoleakage was much hindered by inconsistencies in the silver deposition. The application procedure of some 1-SEAs sometimes proved as elaborate and time consuming as those of the two-step adhesive Clearfil SE Bond.
CONCLUSION: Considering bond strength and application procedure, 1-SEAs are not always a better alternative to multistep adhesives.