OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength (µTBS) of Scotchbond Universal to dentin using the etch-and-rinse or the self-etch technique after 24 h and 6 months of storage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Flat dentin surfaces were obtained in 24 third molars. The teeth were divided into four groups: G1 - Scotchbond Universal applied in the etch-and-rinse mode; G2 - Scotchbond Universal applied in the self-etch mode; G3 - Scotchbond Multi-Purpose; G4 - Clearfil SE Bond. A block of composite was built on the adhesive area. The tooth/resin sets were cut parallel to the long axis to obtain 40 beams (~0.8 mm(2)) for each group. Twenty specimens were immediately submitted to the µTBS test, and the remaining 20 were stored in water for 6 months. Failures and the adhesive interface were analyzed by SEM. RESULTS: According to two-way ANOVA, the interaction between adhesive and storage time was significant (p=0.015).The µTBS (MPa) means were the following: 24 h - G1 (39.37±10.82), G2 (31.02±13.76), G3 (35.09±14.03) and G4 (35.84±11.06); 6 months - G1 (36.99±8.78), G2 (40.58±8.07), G3 (32.44±6.07) and G4 (41.75±8.25). Most failures were mixed. Evidence of hybrid layer and numerous resin tags were noted for Scotchbond Universal applied with the etch-and-rinse mode and Scotchbond Multi-Purpose. A thinner hybrid layer and fewer resin tags were noted for Scotchbond Universal applied in the self-etch mode and Clearfil SE Bond. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that the µTBS for Scotchbond Universal is comparable to the gold-standard adhesives. Scotchbond Universal applied in the self-etch mode and Clearfil SE Bond revealed higher bond stability compared to the etch-and-rinse mode.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Manfroi et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: