Bonding Characteristics of Self‐etching Adhesives to Intact versus Prepared Enamel

Abstract

Purpose: This study tested the null hypothesis that the preparation of the enamel surface would not affect the enamel microtensile bond strengths of self‐etching adhesive materials. Materials and Methods: Ten bovine incisors were trimmed with a diamond saw to obtain a squared enamel surface with an area of 8 × 8 mm. The specimens were randomly assigned to five adhesives: (1) ABF (Kuraray), an experimental two‐bottle self‐etching adhesive; (2) Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray), a two‐bottle self‐etching adhesive; (3) One‐Up Bond F (Tokuyama), an all‐in‐one adhesive; (4) Prompt L‐Pop (3M ESPE), an all‐in‐one adhesive; and (5) Single Bond (3M ESPE), a two‐bottle total‐etch adhesive used as positive control. For each specimen, one half was roughened with a diamond bur for 5 seconds under water spray, whereas the other half was left unprepared. The adhesives were applied as per manufacturers' directions. A universal hybrid composite resin (Filtek Z250, 3M ESPE) was inserted in three layers of 1.5 mm each and light‐cured. Specimens were sectioned in X and Y directions to obtain bonded sticks with a cross‐sectional area of 0.8 ± 0.2 mm². Sticks were tested in tension in an Instron at a cross‐speed of 1 mm per minute. Statistical analysis was carried out with two‐way analysis of variance and Duncan's test at p <. 05. Ten extra specimens were processed for observation under a field‐emission scanning electron microscope. Results: Single Bond, the total‐etch adhesive, resulted in statistically higher microtensile bond strength than any of the other adhesives regardless of the enamel preparation (unprepared = 31.5 MPa; prepared = 34.9 MPa, not statistically different at p < 05). All the self‐etching adhesives resulted in higher microtensile bond strength when enamel was roughened than when enamel was left unprepared. However, for ABF and for Clearfil SE Bond this difference was not statistically significant at p > 05. When applied to ground enamel, mean bond strengths of Prompt L‐Pop were not statistically different from those of Clearfil SE Bond and ABF. One‐Up Bond F did not bond to unprepared enamel. Commercial self‐etching adhesives performed better on prepared enamel than on unprepared enamel. The field‐emission scanning electron microscope revealed a deep interprismatic etching pattern for the total‐etch adhesive, whereas the self‐etching systems resulted in an etching pattern ranging from absent to moderate. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE For the recently introduced all‐in‐one self‐etching dental adhesives, instrumentation of enamel may be critical for their ability to optimally bond to enamel.