The aim of the study was to evaluate the performance of six commercially available universal dental adhesives: Adhese Universal (ADU), All-Bond Universal (ABU), Clearfil Universal Bond Quick (CBQ), G-Premio Bond (GPB), Prelude One (PRO) and Scotchbond Universal (SBU). The properties tested were: (a) degree of C=C conversion (DC%); (b) Vickers micro-hardness (VHN); (c) extent of oxygen inhibition (OI/μm), all related with the adhesive film properties; (d) extent of dentin demineralisation (DM%), insoluble salt formation (AS%); and (e) shear bond strength (SBS, self-etch mode) related to the adhesive-dentin interactions. Statistical analysis (α = 0.05) was performed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (DC%, VHN, OI, DM% AS%) and Weibull analysis (SBS, σ₀₋β). The DC ranged from 67.2-82.5% (all >GPB), OI from 5.6-18.6 μm (SBU > ADU, GPB, ABU > CBQ > PRO), microhardness from 1.1-6.6 VHN (SBU > ADU > ABU > CBQ > PRO > GPB: not measurable), DM from 69.3% (GPB) to 16-12.5% (CBQ, SBU, ADU) and 13.2-10.6% (ABU, ADU, PRO), in homogeneous groups and AS from 26-15.9% (ABU, CBQ > GPB, PRO, ADU, SBU). For SBS the σ₀ (characteristic life) ranged from 29.3-16.6 MPa (CBQ, ADU, ABU, SBU > PRO > GPB), the β (reliability) from 5.1-9.7 (p > 0.05). All failure modes were of mixed type (adhesive and composite cohesive). Although all these adhesives were based on the 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (10-MDP) adhesive monomer, the different co-monomers, solvents and catalysts led to variations in their film properties, reactivity and bonding capacity with dentin.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Papadogiannis et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: