Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Adhesive Research Articles

Effect of universal adhesive application on bond strength of four-year aged composite repair

Introduction Universal adhesives were introduced to provide faster adhesive application and a less technique-sensitive procedure, however, there is a dearth of studies in the literature about the use of Universal adhesives in composite repair techniques. Objective To evaluate the effect of universal adhesives systems on the shear bond strength (SBS) of fresh composite to four-year water-aged composite, simulating resin composite repair technique, after 24 h and one year of water storage. Material and Methods Thirty-six composite (Charisma, Kulzer) plates were fabricated and stored in distilled water at 37 °C for 4 years. The aged plates were sandblasted and assigned to the groups (n = 9): SMP: Silane (Ceramic Primer, 3 M Oral Care) + Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Adhesive (3 M Oral Care – control); GBU: Gluma Bond Universal (Kulzer); ADU: Adhese Universal (Ivoclar Vivadent); SBU: Scotchbond Bond Universal (3 M Oral Care). Two fresh composites (Charisma, Kulzer) cylinders were constructed on each plate with the same composite and tested after 24 h or 1 year of water storage, using the MSBS testing. Data were analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey test (a = 0.05). Results At 24-hour evaluation time, there was no statistical difference among the bonding repair strategies. After one year of water storage, GBU exhibited the lowest bond strength outcome, while the other groups did not differ among them. Control, ADU, and SBU kept the bond strength values stable until one year. Conclusions The combination of sandblasting and ADU and SBU Universal adhesives presented the same outcome observed for the control and stable bond strength after 12-months of water storage.

Bond strength repair of a bulk-fill composite using different adhesive systems and resin composites

In this study evaluated the effect of different adhesive systems and resin composites on the microtensile bond strength of repairs using a bulk-fill composite. Ninety specimens were prepared using a half-hourglass mold of composite Filtek Bulk Fill using a silicone matrix. Specimens were randomly distributed in 9 experimental groups (n=10) according to adhesive [Universal Single Bond (SBU), Scotchbond Multipurpose Adhesive (SBMP), and Single Bond 2 (SB2)] and resin composite (Filtek Bulk Fill, Aura Bulk Fill, and Filtek Z250). For control group, hourglass specimens were used to measure the ultimate bond strength. Specimens were submitted to thermal cycling (5,000 cycles, 5 and 55°C, 30s) to simulate the aging of restoration and then the repair procedure was performed. After the diamond-tipped surface roughening to be repaired, the adhesive protocol was performed according to group, the specimen was placed in an hourglass-shaped mold and the other half was filled with the repair composite. After 24h, bond strength of specimens was obtained by microtensile using a universal testing machine at a speed of 0.5mm/min. Data were statistically analyzed by two-way ANOVA, Tukey’s and Dunnett’s tests (α=0.05). SBU showed higher bond strength compared to SB2, while SBMP showed intermediate values. However, all experimental groups showed lower bond strength compared to ultimate bond strength. In conclusion, bulk-fill composite repair using universal or conventional solvent-free adhesive improved the adhesion independent of composite tested.

Effect of two processing techniques used to manufacture lithium disilicate ceramics on the degree of conversion and microshear bond strength of resin cement.

The aim of the current study was to compare the effect of two lithium disilicate ceramic processing techniques (pressing and CAD/CAM) on the degree of conversion of resin cement when it is photoactivated and the microshear bond strength of resin cement to ceramics. Two ceramic discs were manufactured: one by the Press technique and another by CAD/CAM technique. Five Variolink Veneer resin cement samples were photoactivated through each ceramic disc and subjected to attenuated total reflectance Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy to evaluate their degree of conversion. To evaluate microshear bond strength, 20 ceramic bars were prepared: 10 using the Press technique and 10 using the CAD/CAM technique. The bars were air abraded with 50-μm Al2O3 particles, treated with 10% hydrofluoric acid for 20 s and subjected to RelyX Ceramic Primer application. Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Adhesive was applied to the bars and cured for 10 s. Two 1-mm-height plastic tubes were placed on each bar and filled with Variolink Veneer resin cement. Each cylinder was cured for 20 s. Then the plastic tubes were removed and the microshear bond strength of each cylinder was tested. Data for degree of conversion (%) and microshear bond strength (MPa) were subjected to Student's t-test (α = 0.05). Both degree of conversion of resin cement photoactivated through ceramic and microshear bond strength of resin cement to ceramic were statistically higher in the group in which ceramic was prepared by CAD/CAM technique (44.74% and 22.18 MPa) than in the group in which the ceramic was prepared by the Press technique (25.71% and 19.83 MPa). The lithium disilicate ceramic processing techniques affected the degree of conversion of resin cement when it is photoactivated through the ceramics and the microshear bond strength of resin cement to ceramics.

Which materials would account for a better mechanical behavior for direct endocrown restorations?

PurposeTo investigate the mechanical performance and fracture behavior of endocrown restorations prepared using different composite materials and following a direct technique. Methods: Sound molars were cut at 2 mm above the cementoenamel junction, endodontically treated, and allocated according to the type of restoration (n = 7): without post (endocrowns) or with post (post-retained restorations). Endocrowns were fabricated with conventional composite (Filtek Z350); bulk fill composite (Filtek Bulk Fill); conventional composite modeled using resin adhesives (SBMP: Scotchbond Multipurpose Adhesive; or SBU: Scotchbond Universal Adhesive); and lithium disilicate ceramic (E.max; Positive control). The post-retained restorations were fabricated with glass-fiber post combined with conventional or bulk fill composites. All restorations were bonded following an etch-and-rise adhesive approach or self-adhesive resin cement. The teeth were submitted to fatigue (Byocycle) and compression (EMIC DL500) testing at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Data were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey (p < 0.05) and Weibull analysis was carried out in order to evaluate the reliability of restorations. Results: The bulk-fill-based endocrown showed a stronger performance than the control. The presence of SBMP or the use of bulk-fill composite resulted in the occurrence of less aggressive fractures than the other restorative systems. Endocrowns bonded directly to the tooth seemed to produce similar fracture strength properties as compared to endocrowns bonded using self-adhesive resin cementation. The bulk-fill-based endocrown showed the greatest reliability of study. Conclusion: Resin-based restorative materials seem to be interesting alternative options to fabricate large dental restorations in lieu of the more traditionally used glass ceramics or root canal post systems.

Effect of metal primers on the bond strength of resin cement to Co-Cr alloy.

To evaluate the effects of adhesive systems and primer systems on microshear bond strength of chemically activated resin cemented to Co-Cr cast dental alloy. Seventy-two rectangular blocks of Co-Cr metal alloy were manufactured and air-abraded with 50-μm Al2O3 particles. Metal primers (alloy primer [AP] or Clearfil ceramic primer [CP]) and adhesives (Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Adhesive activated by Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Adhesive Catalyst [SASC], or Primer & Bond 2.1 activated by Self Cure Activator [PBCA]) were applied and subsequently divided into six groups (SASC; AP+SASC; CP+SASC; PBCA; AP+PBCA; CP+PBCA; N.=12). Then, resin cement (Enforce) was applied. Data about microshear bond strength values were statistically evaluated by analysis of variance and Tukey's test. The bond strength was lower (P<0.001) in groups with adhesive system alone (SASC and PBCA) compared with groups with addition of primers alloy primer (AP+SASC and AP+PBCA) and ceramic primer (CP+SASC and CP+PBCA). The application of primers improves the bond strength of the cement resin to the Co-Cr metal alloy.

Bond Strength of Universal Self-Etch 1-Step Adhesive Systems for Orthodontic Brackets

The objective of this study was to assess the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets bonded to uncut enamel with universal self-etch 1-step adhesive systems.Extracted uncut premolars (n = 160) were randomly divided into 4 groups for treatment with Scotchbond Universal Adhesive (SU), All-Bond Universal (BU), Clearfil Universal Bond (CU) or the control, Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Adhesive. Following bonding of brackets on tooth surfaces, teeth were stored in distilled water for 24 h and 6 months, and brackets were tested for SBS. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) and quantitative percentage of remaining resin (%RR) were recorded. Scanning electron microscopy was used to analyze debonded surfaces qualitatively. SBS and %RR data were analyzed by 2-way ANOVA followed by the Tukey test (α = 0.05).At neither time did these universal adhesives achieve satisfactory SBS for orthodontic treatment. The control group had the highest SBS, ARI score and mean %RR (and these differences were significant), while the BU group had the lowest SBS. SBS mean values and ARI scores decreased over time for SU and BU, but remained stable for CU. There was no difference in %RR among the universal adhesives tested.None of the universal adhesives used in self-etch mode achieved SBS values (at 24 h and 6 months) that were satisfactory for orthodontic treatment.

Resin–resin microtensile bond strength after different surface treatments to clean blood contamination

ObjectivesThe aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of different surface treatments on the resin–resin bond strength of a composite resin previously contaminated with blood. MethodsSixty bar-shaped specimens were fabricated. Two 2-mm-thick layers of an A3.5 shade composite (TPH3) were inserted on a silicon matrix, photoactivated and subjected to different surface treatments (n=12): (1) no contamination, control; (2) blood contamination and air drying; (3) blood contamination, rinsing with water, and air drying; (4) blood contamination, rinsing with water, air drying, and application of the bonding agent of an adhesive system (Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Adhesive); and (5) blood contamination, rinsing with water, air drying, phosphoric acid etching, and application of the bonding agent of an adhesive system. Then, two 2-mm-thick layers of an A1 shade composite (TPH3) were inserted and photoactivated. After storing in water for 24h, the samples were subjected to a microtensile bond strength test in a universal testing machine. Failure modes were evaluated in a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and the Tukey test (p<0.05). ResultsThere were statistically significant differences between the treatments. Blood contamination and air drying provided the lowest bond strength values; only blood contamination, rinsing with water, air drying, phosphoric acid etching, and application of the bonding agent of an adhesive system provided bond strength similar to the control. ConclusionsThe use of a full adhesive protocol involving phosphoric acid etching and the application of the bonding agent of an adhesive system provided adequate resin–resin bond strength of the composite tested.

Performance of universal adhesives on bonding to leucite-reinforced ceramic.

BackgroundThis study aimed to investigate the microshear bond strength of universal bonding adhesives to leucite-reinforced glass-ceramic.MethodsLeucite-reinforced glass-ceramic blocks were polished and etched with 9.5% hydrofluoric acid for 1 min. The specimens were assigned to one of four groups based on their surface conditioning (n = 16): 1) NC: negative control with no further treatment; 2) SBU: Single Bond Universal (3M ESPE); 3) ABU: ALL-BOND Universal (Bisco); and 4) PC: RelyX Ceramic Primer and Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Adhesive (3M ESPE) as a positive control. RelyX Ultimate resin cement (3M ESPE) was placed on the pretreated ceramic and was light cured. Eight specimens from each group were stored in water for 24 h, and the remaining eight specimens were thermocycled 10,000 times prior to microshear bond strength evaluation. The fractured surfaces were examined by stereomicroscopy and scanning electron microscopy (SEM).ResultsAfter water storage and thermocycling, the microshear bond strength values decreased in the order of PC > SBU and ABU > NC (P < 0.05). Thermocycling significantly reduced the microshear bond strength, regardless of the surface conditioning used (P < 0.05). Cohesive failure in the ceramic and mixed failure in the ceramic and resin cement were observed in the fractured specimens. The percentage of specimens with cohesive failure after 24 h of water storage was: NC (50%), SBU (75%), ABU (75%), and PC (87%). After thermocycling, the percentage of cohesive failure in NC decreased to 25%; however, yet the percentages of the other groups remained the same.ConclusionsAlthough the bond strength between resin and hydrofluoric acid-etched glass ceramic was improved when universal adhesives were used, conventional surface conditioning using a separate silane and adhesive is preferable to a simplified procedure that uses only a universal adhesive for cementation of leucite-reinforced glass-ceramic.

Evaluation of the formation of marginal gaps in preheated composite resin restorations

Composite resins are polymeric restorative materials that have acceptable mechanical properties, so they are used in anterior and posterior teeth. There is, however, polymerization shrinkage inherent in the polymeric materials. This contraction is responsible for the formation of cracks at the interface of the restoration. These gaps contribute to the staining of the composite resin and the appearance of cavities. In order to minimize the effects of polymerization shrinkage, variations in restorative technique has been introduced to fulfill this goal. The preheating resin composite is one of them.This study aimed to assess the formation of marginal gaps, using scan electron microscopy, in composite resin restorations created using one room-temperature composite resin and one preheated to 60°C. 20 recently-extracted human molars with circular cavities in the surface dentine of each proximal surface were used. The cavities were restored using Filtek Z350 (3M) composite resin affixed with Adper Scotchbond Multipurpose Adhesive (3M) and divided into two groups of 10 samples: group 1 – room-temperature composite resin restorations (n=10) and group 2 – composite resin restorations preheated to 60oC (n=10). The samples were kept in a bacteriological incubator for a period of seven days. After this, the restorations were polished and epoxy resin replicas were created using a casting with addition silicone for subsequent SEM analysis. The gaps were measured with the aid of UTHSCSA Image tool software and the results were submitted to Student “t” test statistical analysis, achieving the following results: the highest marginal gap figures were obtained with Filtek Z350 resin preheated to 60oC (t= -3.961 and p=0.000). Based on the methodology employed and the results achieved, it can be concluded that there was a greater formation of marginal gaps in the dentin-composite resin interface where Filtek Z350 resin preheated to 60°C was used for restorations, thus making it preferable to use room-temperature composite resin.Keywords:Composite resin. Marginal gaps. Electronic microscopy.

Changes in Water Sorption and Solubility of Dental Adhesive Systems after Cigarette Smoke

Aim. To evaluate the effect of cigarette smoke on water sorption and solubility of four adhesive systems. Materials and Methods. Sixteen disks of each adhesive system were prepared (Adper Scotchbond Multipurpose Adhesive (SA); Adper Scotchbond Multipurpose Adhesive System (Adhesive + Primer) (SAP); Adper Single Bond Plus (SB); Adper Easy One (EO)). Specimens were desiccated until a constant mass was obtained and divided into two groups (n = 8). One-half of the specimens were immersed in deionized water, while the other half were also immersed, but with daily exposure to tobacco smoke. After 21 days, disks were measured again and stored in desiccators until constant mass was achieved. Data were calculated according to ISO specifications and statistically analyzed. Results. The tobacco smoke only significantly affected the water sorption and solubility of EO. There were significant differences in both analyses among materials tested. The SB exhibited the highest water sorption, followed by EO, which demonstrated significantly higher solubility values than SB. The SA and SAP showed low water sorption and solubility, and there were no significant differences between the two. Conclusion. Regardless of smoke exposure, both simplified adhesive systems presented an inferior performance that could be related to the complex mixture of components in such versions.

Effect of an additional hydrophilic versus hydrophobic coat on the quality of dentinal sealing provided by two-step etchand-rinse adhesives

Objective:To test the hypothesis that the quality of the dentinal sealing provided by two-step etch-and-rinse adhesives cannot be altered by the addition of an extra layer of the respective adhesive or the application of a more hydrophobic, non-solvated resin.Material and Methods:full-crown preparations were acid-etched with phosphoric acid for 15 s and bonded with Adper Single Bond (3M ESPE), Excite DSC (Ivoclar/Vivadent) or Prime & Bond NT (Dentsply). The adhesives were used according to the manufacturers' instructions (control groups) or after application to dentin they were a) covered with an extra coat of each respective system or b) coated with a non-solvated bonding agent (Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Adhesive, 3M ESPE). Fluid flow rate was measured before and after dentin surfaces were acid-etched and bonded with adhesives.Results:None of the adhesives or experimental treatments was capable to block completely the fluid transudation across the treated dentin. Application of an extra coat of the adhesive did not reduce the fluid flow rate of adhesive-bonded dentin (p>0.05). Conversely, the application of a more hydrophobic non-solvated resin resulted in significant reductions in the fluid flow rate (p<0.05) for all tested adhesives.Conclusions:The quality of the dentinal sealing provided by etch-and-rinse adhesives can be significantly improved by the application of a more hydrophobic, non-solvated bonding agent.

In vitro assessment of solvent evaporation from commercial adhesive systems compared to experimental systems

Solvents should be properly evaporated after application to dental substrates. The aim of this study was to assess the evaporation of commercial, experimental and neat solvents. The tested null hypotheses were that there are no differences in solvent evaporation regardless of its formulation and over time. Evaporation from commercial adhesive systems (Scotchbond Multipurpose Primer, Scotchbond Multipurpose Adhesive, Prime & Bond NT, Multi Bond, Excite, Single Bond 2, Adhese Primer, Adhese Bond, Xeno III A and Xeno III B) and experimental primers (35% HEMA plus 65% acetone or ethanol or water v/v) were compared to neat solvents (acetone, ethanol and water). Samples (10 microL) of these products were dripped into glass containers placed on a digital precision balance. Evaporation was assessed at 0, 5, 10, 15, 30, 60, 120, 300 and 600 s times to calculate mass loss. Data were analyzed statistically by ANOVA and Bonferroni's correction (a=0.05). Acetone-based products exhibited a remarkable capacity to evaporate spontaneously over time. Neat acetone evaporated significantly more than the HEMA-mixtures and the commercial formulations (p<0.05). The incorporation of monomers and other ingredients in the commercial formulations seem to reduce the evaporation capacity. Solvent evaporation was time and material-dependent.

Effects of resinous monomers used in restorative dental modeling on the cohesive strength of composite resin.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cohesive strength of the composite using different resinous monomers to lubricate instruments used in the Restorative Dental Modeling Insertion Technique (RDMIT). The composite specimens were made by usinga prefabricated Teflon device. Different resinous monomers were used at the interface to lubricate the instruments, for a total of 72 specimens divided into 6 groups: (1) control group, no resinous monomer was used; (2) Composite Wetting Resin; (3) C & B Liquid; (4) Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Adhesive; (5) Adper Single Bond Adhesive; (6) Prime & Bond NT. Specimens were submitted to the circular area tensile test to evaluate the cohesive strength at the composite interfaces. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey's test (alpha = 0.05). ANOVA showed a value of p < 0.0001, which indicated thatthere were significant differences amongthe groups. The means (SD) for the different groups were: Adper Single Bond Adhesive: 26 (12) a; control group: 28 (3) ab; Prime & Bond NT: 32 (12) ab; Composite Wetting Resin: 36 (9) abc; C&B Liquid: 38 (7) bc; Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Adhesive: 46 (10) c. Groups denoted with the same letters were not significantly different. Only Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Adhesive, used for direct restorations, had a statistically significantly higher bond strength than the control group, Adper Single Bond Adhesive, and Prime & Bond NT. Adper Single Bond with Adhesive showed a statistically significantly lower mean value than C & B Liquid. The results of this study indicate that the resinous monomers used for lubricating the instruments in the RDMIT did not alter the mechanical properties of the composite, and therefore did not reduce the cohesive bond strength at the composite interfaces.

Initial adhesion of glass‐fiber–reinforced composite to the surface of porcine calvarial bone

The aim of this preliminary study was to compare the initial bond strength of the glass-fiber-reinforced composite veil to the surface of the porcine calvarial compact bone using different adhesives. Fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) made of E-glass fiber veil with the BisGMA-PMMA resin system was used in the study. For the shear bond strength test, porcine calvarial bone cubes were mounted into resin matrix. FRC-veil discs were bonded to compact bone with different types of adhesives: (A) BisGMA-HEMA based (3M-ESPE Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Adhesive), (B) 4-META/UDMA/BisGMA based (Unifil Bond Bonding Agent) and MDP based (Clearfil Se Bond adhesive), (C) UDMA/BisGMA/PMMA-based experimental adhesive, and (D) silane-based (APS, ICS, MPS) experimental adhesives. The surface of the bone was mechanically roughened and was either used as such, treated with dental primers (Unifil Bond Self-etching Primer, Clearfil Se Bond Primer), or treated with an experimental silane mixture (APS, ICS, MPS), or with a mixture of the experimental silane liquid and Clearfil Se Bond Primer. The 3M-ESPE Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Adhesive and UDMA/BisGMA/PMMA experimental adhesive gave poor results in the shear bond test (0.58 and 0.40 MPa, respectively). Unifil Bond Bonding Agent and Clearfil Se Bond adhesive with respective primers markedly improved the shear bond strength; with Unifil the result was 3.40 MPa, and with Clearfil it was 6.19 MPa. When the bone surface was primed with a mixture of Clearfil Se Bond Primer and Clearfil Porcelain Bond Activator, the Clearfil Se Bond adhesive-impregnated FRC veil gave the best adhesion to the bone surface in this test: 9.50 MPa. The addition of bioactive glass granules between the veil and the bone lowered the shear bond strength in the test system described above to 6.72 MPa. The test systems with the silane mixture were also promising. In the SEM study, it was found that the mechanical treatment reveals the pores of the bone surface. Chemical treatments of the bone surface improved the adhesion of the FRC veil to the bone. The results showed that the adhesion of the FRC to the surface of the bone can be significantly improved with mechanical roughening and with special chemical treatments of the bone surface.

Analysis of tensile bond strengths using Weibull statistics

Tensile strength tests of restorative resins bonded to dentin, and the resultant strengths of interfaces between the two, exhibit wide variability. Many variables can affect test results, including specimen preparation and storage, test rig design and experimental technique. However, the more fundamental source of variability, that associated with the brittle nature of the materials, has received little attention. This paper analyzes results from micro-tensile tests on unfilled resins and adhesive bonds between restorative resin composite and dentin in terms of reliability using the Weibull probability of failure method. Results for the tensile strengths of Scotchbond Multipurpose Adhesive (3 M) and Clearfil LB Bond (Kuraray) bonding resins showed Weibull moduli ( m) of 6.17 (95% confidence interval, 5.25–7.19) and 5.01 (95% confidence interval, 4.23–5.8). Analysis of results for micro-tensile tests on bond strengths to dentin gave moduli between 1.81 (Clearfil Liner Bond 2 V) and 4.99 (Gluma One Bond, Kulzer). Material systems with m in this range do not have a well-defined strength. The Weibull approach also enables the size dependence of the strength to be estimated. An example where the bonding area was changed from 3.1 to 1.1 mm diameter is shown. Weibull analysis provides a method for determining the reliability of strength measurements in the analysis of data from bond strength and tensile tests on dental restorative materials.

Long‐term quantification of the release of monomers from dental resin composites and a resin‐modified glass ionomer cement

This study quantified the release of monomers from polymerized specimens of four commercially available resin composites and one glass ionomer cement immersed in water:ethanol solutions. Individual standard curves were prepared from five monomers: (1) triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA), (2) 2-hydroxy-ethyl methacrylate (HEMA), (3) urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA), (4) bisphenol A glycidyl dimethacrylate (BISGMA), and (5) bisphenol A. The concentration of the monomers was determined at Days 1, 7, 30, and 90 with the use of electrospray ionization/mass spectrometry. Data were expressed in mean micromol per mm(2) surface area of specimen and analyzed with Scheffe's test (p<0.05). The following monomers were found in water: monomers (1) and (2) from Delton sealant, monomer (5) from ScotchBond Multipurpose Adhesive and Delton sealant, monomer (3) from Definite and monomer (4) from Fuji II LC, ScotchBond Multipurpose Adhesive, Synergy and Definite. All these monomers increased in concentration over time, with the exception of monomer (1) from Delton sealant. Monomers (3) and (5) were found in extracts of materials despite their absence from the manufacturer's published composition. All monomers were released in significantly higher concentrations in water:ethanol solutions than in water. The greatest release of monomers occurred in the first day. The effect of the measured concentrations of monomers (1-5) on human genes, cells, or tissues needs to be considered with the use of a biological model.

Fluoride release from glass ionomer cements and resin composites coated with a dentin adhesive

Objectives: This laboratory study compared the effect of surface coatings on patterns and amounts of fluoride released from four glass ionomer cements and two fluoride-containing resin composites. Methods: Twelve cylinders of each material were prepared in a polyethylene mold. The experimental groups ( n=6) were coated with one layer of an adhesive resin (3M Scotchbond Multipurpose Adhesive), while the control groups ( n=6) remained uncoated. Cumulative fluoride release into deionized water was measured on days 1, 2, 3, 7, 14, 21 and 28 using an ion analyzer. Total fluoride release after 28 days was analyzed for significant differences among materials using one-way ANOVA and Student–Newman–Keuls test ( p<0.05). Results: The total amounts of fluoride release from the coated samples were found to be significantly less than the uncoated samples for all materials, except Solitaire. The uncoated samples released a total amount of fluoride of between 2.3 and 85.4 ppm, while the coated samples released a total amount of fluoride of between <0.2 and 24.1 ppm. Similar patterns of fluoride release were found in coated and uncoated samples. Significance: The results indicated that the application of a dentin adhesive coating did not completely prevent fluoride release from glass ionomer cements and fluoridated resin composites, although the amounts were significantly less. Clinically, it suggests that a continued release of fluoride from glass ionomer cements and fluoridated resin composites is possible after placing a thin layer of resin adhesive. The clinical significance of these findings is not known.