Quick bonding using a universal adhesive

Ahmed, Mohammed H.; Yoshihara, Kazuhiro; Mercelis, Benjamin; Landuyt, Kirsten Van; Peumans, Marleen; Meerbeek, Bart Van

doi:10.1007/s00784-019-03149-8

Cited by 42 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Dental adhesive technology has greatly evolved in recent years towards achieving better longevity of direct and indirect adhesive restorations with simplified application procedures. Despite being the most recent generation of dental adhesives, universal adhesives, which optionally can be applied in a self-etch (SE) or etch-and-rinse (E&R) bonding mode, are still thought to have shortcomings with a definite need to improve their long-term bond durability [1][2][3]. Thus keeping conventional 3-step E&R and (mild) 2-step SE adhesives, the latter preceded by selective enamel etching and thus also involving a 3-step application procedure, as benchmarks for reliable, predictable and durable bonding in routine clinical practice [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiparameter evaluation of acrylamide HEMA alternative monomers in 2-step adhesives

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multiparameter evaluation of acrylamide HEMA alternative monomers in 2step adhesives ABSTRACT Objectives: As frequently added to adhesives, the mono-functional monomer 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) acts as co-solvent and improves surface wetting. Nevertheless, HEMA promotes watersorption and hydrolysis at adhesive interfaces, affecting bond durability to dentin. This study investigated if two acrylamide co-monomer alternatives could replace HEMA in experimental adhesive-resin formulations as part of 3/2-step universal adhesives applied, respectively, in etch-andrinse (E&R) and self-etch (SE) bonding modes.Methods: Upon priming dentin with the 10-MDP-based Clearfil SE Bond 2' primer ('CSE2p'; Kuraray Noritake), three experimental adhesive resins, consisting of 50wt% Bis-GMA, 15wt% TEGDMA, and either 35wt% diethyl acrylamide ('DEAA'), hydroxyethyl acrylamide ('HEAA') or HEMA ('HEMA+'), were applied. The control HEMA-free adhesive resin contained 60wt% Bis-GMA and 40wt% TEGDMA ('HEMA-'). All adhesives were evaluated for 'immediate' and 'aged' micro-tensile bond strength (μTBS) to dentin upon, respectively, 1-week (1w) and 6-month (6m) water storage, TEM adhesive-dentin interfacial interaction, 24-hour and 6m three-point bending, contact-angle wetting, viscosity and watersorption.Results: Linear mixed-effects model statistics revealed significantly better bonding performance of the adhesives applied in E&R than SE mode, except for DEAA_1w, with the highest μTBSs recorded for DEAA and HEMA-applied in SE mode. In E&R mode, aging did not significantly reduce DEAA's μTBS.Best wetting on primed dentin was recorded for HEMA+, significantly better than DEAA, further HEAA and HEMA-, these directly related to their viscosity. HEAA absorbed significantly more water than all other adhesive-resin formulations. HEMA->DEAA>HEAA>HEMA+ was the significant order for 6m bending strength. Conclusions:The acrylamide co-monomer DEAA could replace HEMA, while HEAA not.Universal adhesives provide acidic aqueous single-solution blends of hydrophilic and hydrophobic components to achieve time-stable bonding to dentin (and enamel) following both main bonding modes [5, 6]. The mono-functional monomer 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) is frequently added to many of today's commercial adhesives as an essential component. Thanks to its inherent hydrophilic nature, HEMA acts as co-solvent for other hydrophobic monomers that mix less good in water, hereby preventing phase separation between monomer ingredients and water [7]. In addition, HEMA promotes surface wetting and intra-substrate infiltration thanks to its small molecular size [8].Nevertheless, HEMA exhibits a noticeably low degree of polymerization conversion (DC) [9]. It holds water, present as basic ingredient in dental adhesives up to 40% [5,10], inside the adhesive, by which water is more difficult to remove by gentle air-blowing upon the adhesive's application. If water remains within the adhesive, it impairs polymerization. All these factors enhance the adhesive's solubility and...

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiparameter evaluation of acrylamide HEMA alternative monomers in 2-step adhesives

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These are recommended to be used in a short time following a 'no-wait' concept: apply and light cure without waiting. According to the manufacturer's instructions, UA can be light cured at the time of application as it no longer interacts with the dental tissue or additional time is required for the solvent to evaporate before light curing (18). One of the revolutionary "no wait" UAs is CUQ, whose manufacturer claims to have recorded a higher SBS to the dentin than other UAs that have been in use for a longer time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Etching Mode and Composite Type on Bond Strength to Biodentine Using a “No-Wait” Universal Adhesive

Güngör

Uysal

2021

Odovtos - Int J Dent Sc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of four resin-based composite materials to a silicate-based cement using a “no-wait” universal bond with self-etch (SE) and etch-and-rinse (ER) modes. Acrylic blocks (n=80, 2mm depth, 5mm diameter central hole) were prepared. The holes were filled with BiodentineTM (BD) and divided into 4 main groups (n=20) according to the composite resin type used: Group FZ250: FiltekTM Z250 Universal Restorative (microhybrid), Group SDR: SDR Plus U Bulk Fill Flowable (low-viscosity bulk-fill), Group FBP: FiltekTM Bulk Fill Posterior (high-viscosity bulk-fill), Group EF: EsFlow™ Universal Flowable Composite (nanohybrid). A ‘no-wait’ universal bond (Clearfil Universal Bond Quick) was used for bonding application. Then each group was divided into 2 subgroups according to the etching mode applied (ER and SE). SBSs were measured and stereomicroscope was used to identify the failure modes. Selected samples of fracture surfaces were imaged by SEM. Tukey’s post-hoc and One-way ANOVA tests were used to analyze data. There were statistically significant differences among the composite groups (p<0.05). When SDR showed the highest bond strength values in SE (17.13 ± 2.98 MPa) mode, FBP showed the lowest bond strength values in ER (8.89 ± 2.46 MPa) mode. The mean SBS was not different between the SE and ER modes (p> 0.05). The SBS of BD to the resin composites depends on the composite type but application of the ‘no-wait’ universal bond in different etching modes is regardless of the SBS of BD to resin composites.

show abstract

“…Optimization of these materials lead to the development of newer universal systems, such as ones containing monomers with different hydrophilic chemistry. This has been shown to reduce application times and lessen technique sensitivity even further and may be favourable for children [43,44].…”

Section: Contemporary Flowable Composites Which Allow Lessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scoping review of trials evaluating adhesive strategies in pediatric dentistry: where do simplified strategies lie?

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Adhesive restorations allow a conservative approach to caries management and are increasingly used as a restorative option in pediatric dentistry. Placement can be difficult in children because of the cooperation required for multiple bonding steps. Due to this, it is vital to assess if novel, simpler strategies have been featured in clinical trials and if clinical trials are researching the different existing adhesive strategies. Methods This review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis adapted for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Central, Scopus and EMBASE were used for systematic search, using free keywords and controlled search terms. Clinical trials of children requiring a restorative intervention which featured adhesive strategies were included. Only peer-reviewed trials of primary teeth restored with resin composites, published in the last 10-year period were eligible. Data charting was accomplished independently by two reviewers, and studies were summarized according to their date, type, intervention, sample size, observation period, outcomes and conclusions. Quality assessment was performed using Cochrane’s Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Results 700 potentially relevant references were found, which after a rigorous inclusion scheme, resulted in a total of 8 eligible clinical trials. Out of these, 7 were randomized clinical trials. Most trials featured a split-mouth design and the observation period ranged from 12 to 36 months. The trials evaluated interventions of two self-adhesive composites, two bulk-fill composites, two novel composites, one compomer and eight adhesives from different strategies. Most studies (4/8) included were judged to raise some concerns regarding risk of bias, while two were classified as high risk and two as low. Conclusion Few studies comparing adhesive strategies were found, especially adhesives in sound substrates. The existing studies do not reflect all current approaches that could be used in pediatric dentistry. Further studies addressing bioactive composites and contemporary adhesives are necessary.

show abstract

Quick bonding using a universal adhesive

Cited by 42 publications

References 44 publications

Multiparameter evaluation of acrylamide HEMA alternative monomers in 2-step adhesives

Multiparameter evaluation of acrylamide HEMA alternative monomers in 2-step adhesives

Influence of Etching Mode and Composite Type on Bond Strength to Biodentine Using a “No-Wait” Universal Adhesive

Scoping review of trials evaluating adhesive strategies in pediatric dentistry: where do simplified strategies lie?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About