A New Generation of Self-etching Adhesives: Comparison with Traditional Acid Etch Technique

摘要: The aim of this study was to determine the shear bond strength (SBS), etching pattern and depth, debonding performance several market-leading, self-etching (SE) adhesives primarily used in restorative dentistry (iBond™, Clearfil™ S3 Bond, Protect AdheSE®, Xeno®III), two experimental (exp. Bond 1, exp. 2) one cement (SE Zement) with without prior phosphoric acid-etching, compare them an orthodontic product (Transbond™ Plus SE Primer) traditional acid-etch technique XT Primer, acid) All were applied on pumiced embedded bovine incisors following manufacturers' instructions. Then bracket each (coated Transbond™ composite) bonded (n = 20). polymerized for 20 s from incisal gingival sides using a halogen device positioned at constant 5 mm 45° angle specimen. specimens stored distilled water 24 h 37 °C before measuring SBS. ARI (adhesive remnant index) all determined sheared-off brackets each. After conditioning, surface texture morphologically evaluated scanning electron microscope (SEM) images, while depth confocal laserscanning (CLSM). groups tested normal distribution analyzed by applying ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis or t test. In addition, Bonferroni correction used. median values SBS tests were: Zement 3.0 MPa, preceded acid 11.2 1: 7.4 2: 5.6 iBond™ 8.1 14.1 16.6 15.9 AdheSE® 16.0 Xeno®III 16.1 Primer 20.7 acidetching+ 21.0 MPa. With exception iBond™, we observed no significant differences among selfetching Restorative Dentistry comparison Primer. No apparent even when compared after acid-etching. Both bonding agents performed significantly worse than products mentioned above, failing demonstrate sufficient adhesive strength. SEM examination revealed less distinctive enamel-etching patterns CLSM analysis depths between 0.5 μm depending product. When used, residual composite remained enamel are suitable reduce risk fracture minimizing which turns means conditioning-related loss. More development is needed improve both Zement.