Premium
Effect of dentine conditioners on the bonding efficacy of one‐bottle adhesives
Author(s) -
CHENG J.T.,
ITOH K.,
KUSUNOKI M.,
HASEGAWA T.,
WAKUMOTO S.,
HISAMITSU H.
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
journal of oral rehabilitation
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.991
H-Index - 93
eISSN - 1365-2842
pISSN - 0305-182X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2004.01359.x
Subject(s) - adhesive , bottle , materials science , phosphoric acid , composite number , methacrylate , dentistry , composite material , dentin , polymerization , medicine , layer (electronics) , metallurgy , polymer
summary The bonding efficacy of four one‐bottle adhesives (OptiBond Solo Plus, Gluma Comfort Bond, One Step and Prime & Bond NT) and a multi‐step adhesive (Clearfil Photo Bond) as a control was evaluated. The dentine cavity wall was conditioned with phosphoric acid or ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and the marginal integrity was estimated by measuring the wall‐to‐wall contraction gap width between the composite and the dentine cavity surface. In the positive control group, the adhesive was applied following glyceryl methacrylate (GM) priming. The analyses were performed by Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U ‐tests. One‐bottle adhesives were clearly inferior to the multi‐step bonding system in marginal integrity when dentine was conditioned with EDTA. The present findings also suggested that the marginal sealing ability of ethanol‐based one‐bottle systems was better than acetone‐based one‐bottle systems when dentine surfaces were conditioned with EDTA. Nevertheless, further investigations are needed on the function of fillers in one‐bottle adhesives for the prevention of contraction gaps.