Are universal adhesives in etch-and-rinse mode better than old 2-step etch-and-rinse adhesives? One-year evaluation of bonding properties to dentin

Abstract

ObjectivesThis study compared the bonding properties of dentin of three 2-step etch-and-rinse adhesives (2-ERAs) to those of three universal adhesives (UAs) applied with an etch-and-rinse strategy (ER), immediately and after 1 year of water storage. MethodsSixty caries-free molars were divided into 6 groups according to the adhesive systems used (n = 10). The 2-ERA systems included were: 1) Adper Single Bond 2 (SB), 2) Tetric N-Bond (TB), and 3) Ambar (AM); and the UAs systems were: 4) Single Bond Universal (SBU) 5) Tetric N-Bond Universal (TBU), and 6) Ambar Universal (AMU). The occlusal third of each tooth was removed and the adhesives were applied. After the composite build-up, specimens were sectioned and tested for microtensile bond strength (µTBS) and nanoleakage (NL) immediately and after 1 year of water storage. In situ degree of conversion (DC) was only evaluated in the immediate time. For water sorption (WS), solubility (SO), and mass change (MC) tests, 48 disk-shaped specimens were prepared (n = 8) and assessed according to ISO 4049:2009. ResultsUAs showed higher µTBS and lower NL values than 2-ERAs did after 1 year of water storage (p = 0.001). Regarding DC, 2-ERAs showed higher DC values than UAs (p = 0.001). Regarding WS, 2-ERAs showed higher WS values than those of UAs (p = 0.00001), except for AM and AMU. Lower WS was observed for AM than for other 2-ERAs (p = 0.00001). ConclusionThe use of UAs applied with the ER strategy seems to be a more effective technique for maintaining adhesion to dentin substrate than 2-ERAS. Clinical significanceThis study may support clinicians in selecting the most adequate adhesive system to be used in ER strategy in dentin, demonstrating that UAs were more effective, considering the longevity of the resin restorations.