Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 167
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 18  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 25

Effect of accelerated aging and double application on the dentin bond strength of universal adhesive system


1 Dental and Periodontal Research Center, Dental Faculty; Department of Operative Dentistry, Dental Faculty, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
2 Department of Operative Dentistry, Dental Faculty, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
3 Department of Restorative Dentistry, Dental Faculty, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Science, Khuzestan, Ahvaz, Iran
4 Department of Restorative Dentistry, Dental Faculty, Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia, Iran

Date of Submission20-Jul-2019
Date of Acceptance03-May-2020
Date of Web Publication06-Apr-2021

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Sarah Gholizadeh
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Dental Faculty, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Science, Khuzestan, Ahvaz
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1735-3327.313120

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Background: Despite the many advantages of simplified adhesive systems, there are concerns about the durability of the adhesive layer over time. The aim was to investigate the effects of various aging methods and double application of an adhesive layer on the bond strength of the universal adhesive system using etch-and-rinse (ER) and self-etch (SE) strategies.
Materials and Methods: In this in vitro study, the occlusal enamel of 120 extracted, intact human third molars was removed to expose the dentin. Then, the samples were randomly divided into four groups of thirty according to All-Bond Universal (ABU) adhesive application strategy (ER and SE) and the number of adhesive layers (1 or 2). Then, each group was subdivided into three subgroups of ten according to aging method (control, thermal cycling, and 10% sodium hypochlorite [NaOCl]). The shear bond strength was measured at the strain rate of 0.5 mm/min. Data were analyzed using three-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc tests (P < 0.05).
Results: The effect of adhesive application strategy (P < 0.001) and aging method (P < 0.001) on the bond strength was statistically significant, but the effect of the double application was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). In addition, the interactive effect of adhesive application strategy–aging method was significant (P = 0.005).
Conclusion: Using ABU with ER strategy leads to higher dentin bond strength compared to the SE method in the control and thermal cycling groups. However, no significant differences were observed between ER and SE strategies after aging with the NaOCl. Furthermore, the double application might not have any effect on the bond strength and durability.

Keywords: Adhesives, aging, all-bond system, dentin, sodium hypochlorite


How to cite this article:
Bahari M, Oskoee SS, Chaharom ME, Kahnamoui MA, Gholizadeh S, Davoodi F. Effect of accelerated aging and double application on the dentin bond strength of universal adhesive system. Dent Res J 2021;18:25

How to cite this URL:
Bahari M, Oskoee SS, Chaharom ME, Kahnamoui MA, Gholizadeh S, Davoodi F. Effect of accelerated aging and double application on the dentin bond strength of universal adhesive system. Dent Res J [serial online] 2021 [cited 2021 Apr 15];18:25. Available from: https://www.drjjournal.net/text.asp?2021/18/1/25/313120




  Introduction Top


Simplified adhesives are very attractive for the clinicians because of saving time, ease of use, and reduced technical sensitivity. Simplification of adhesive systems became possible by introducing hydrophilic monomers and increasing the solvent content of adhesive formulation to make the adhesive compatible with the wet dentin substrate. However, in this way, more residues of solvent remain in the adhesive layer after evaporation, possibly delaying the formation of a highly cross-linked polymer, reducing the degree of conversion, and increasing the permeability of the adhesive layer. As a result, the interface will be highly susceptible to degradation over time.[1],[2]

Reductions in the bond strength, which are usually seen in long-term studies, are due to the hydrolysis of collagen fibrils, which leads to the destruction of hybrid layer. The bond strength and durability are affected by the resin infiltration extension into exposed collagen fibrils. Ideally, adhesive monomers should fully infiltrate the interfibrillar spaces. It has been shown that there is a correlation between the infiltration of dentin by the adhesives and the thickness of the adhesive with rheological and chemical features; however, they might also be affected by the application strategy.[3],[4] Various strategies such as preetching,[5] increased air-drying time,[6] warm air-drying,[7] double application,[8] active agitation,[9] or the addition of a hydrophobic layer[10] have been proposed to reinforce this variable adhesive layer of simplified adhesives.

The double application increases the resin saturation inside the collagen network, thereby increasing the quality of the resin–dentin interface. In addition, it can easily be done at the chairside. However, several studies have shown that the influence of double application on the bond strength and bond durability of self-etch (SE) adhesive systems depends on adhesive type that cannot be generalized.[11],[12] It has also been reported that the double application of one-step SE adhesives could probably lead to a uniform infiltration of the adhesive into smear layer-covered dentin if a one-step SE adhesive is applied in two layers.[13],[14] However, Fujiwara et al. reported that the double application might be ineffective for two-step SE adhesives for clinical applications.[12]

Multimode or universal adhesive systems (UASs) have newly been introduced, claiming that one monomer solution can be used with both adhesive strategies without affecting the bonding performance. The main advantage of these systems is that they can be used in both etch-and-rinse (ER) and SE strategies and the so-called select-etch strategy. Therefore, this feature has attracted the attention of clinicians.[13],[15],[16] Yet, some researchers believe that the bond quality of UASs is like the conventional single-step SE adhesives without showing progress. Furthermore, it has been reported that the adhesive layer of UASs might susceptible like other SE adhesives.[17],[18] Furthermore, despite the ever-increasing popularity of UASs, there are concerns about bond durability. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of various aging methods and double application on the bond durability of the ultra-mild UAS applied with ER and SE strategies.


  Materials and Methods Top


In this in vitro study, 120 extracted, carious-free, and intact human impacted third molars were stored at the temperature of 4°C for 1 month in a 0.5% chloramine-T solution. To determine the sample size, the results of the pilot study and the formula were used. Considering the sample size calculated 10 for each subgroup and 120 in total.

The occlusal enamel was removed using a low-speed diamond disk (Isomet Low-Speed Saw, Buehler, Lake Bluff, IL, USA) under abundant water spray to expose the dentin of occlusal surface and was finished by 600-grit silicon carbide papers (Struers, Cleveland, OH, USA) for 15 s to standardize the smear layer.

In this study, All-Bond Universal (ABU) adhesive system (Bisco, Schaumburg, IL, USA) was used. After preparing smooth dentin surfaces, the samples were randomly divided into four groups of thirty according to UAS application strategy (ER and SE) and the number of adhesive layers (one layer according to the manufacturer's instruction and two layers according to double-application strategy):

Group 1: Etch-and-rinse – one layer

Etchant gel (37% phosphoric acid, Ultra-Etch, Ultradent, South Jordan, USA) was applied for 15 s and rinsed for 10 s. After drying for 10 s, the ABU was applied according to the manufacturer's instructions in one layer and light cured by light-emitting diode (LED) light-curing unit (Demetron A.2, Kerr, Scafati, Italia) with a capacity of 1000 mw/cm2 for 10 s.

Group 2: Etch-and-rinse – two layers

All stages were similar to the first group, except that an extra layer was applied before the photopolymerization of the first layer of adhesive.

Group 3: Self-etch – one layer

ABU was applied according to manufacturer's instructions for SE method in one layer and then light cured by LED light-curing unit (Demetron A.2, Kerr, Scafati, Italia) with a capacity of 1000 mw/cm2 for 10 s.

Group 4: Self-etch – two layers

All stages were similar to Group 3, except that an extra layer was applied before the photopolymerization of the first layer of adhesive.

After bonding procedures, Z250 composite resin (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) was applied at a height of 5 mm and a diameter of 3 mm using transparent plastic cylinders and light cured for 40 s on each side. One person performed all bonding steps. It should be noted that the intensity of light was evaluated periodically by a radiometer (Demetron, Model 100, Kerr, Danbury, CT).

Then, each group was subdivided into three subgroups of ten according to aging method. In the first subgroup as control, the samples were stored in distilled water for 24 h at 37°C. In the second, thermal cycling was performed by applying 3000 cycles at 5°C–55°C with dwell time of 30 s for each and the transfer time of 5 s. In the third, samples were stored in 10% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) (Ogna Laboratory Farmaceutici, Muggio, Italy) for 3 h. The shear bond strength (SBS) was measured using a universal testing machine (Hounsfield Test Equipment, Model H5KS, Surrey, UK) at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The SBS was calculated by dividing the peak failure force (N) into the bonded surface area (mm2) in MPa. Data were analyzed with SPSS 16.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) using three-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test with a significance level of P < 0.05.


  Results Top


The mean and standard deviation of bond strength values are summarized in [Table 1]. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test showed that the data have a normal distribution (P = 0.18 > 0.05). Three-way ANOVA showed that the effect of adhesive application strategy (P < 0.001) and aging method (P < 0.001) on bond strength was significant, but the effect of the double application was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). In addition, the interactive effect of adhesive application strategy–aging method was significant (P = 0.005), but in other cases, the interactive effect of the two variables was not significant (P > 0.05).
Table 1: The mean (MPa) and standard deviation of shear bond strength values

Click here to view


Two-by-two comparison of various aging methods with Tukey's post hoc test showed that there are significant differences between the aging methods with each other as well (P < 0.001). Furthermore, SBS values in the control and thermal cycling groups in the ER application method were significantly higher than that in SE method (P < 0.001), but there was no significant difference between the adhesive application strategies in the NaOCl group (P > 0.05). The error bar diagram associated with comparing SBS values in groups and subgroups is shown in [Figure 1].
Figure 1: The error bar diagram showing a 95% confidence interval of mean bond strength values.

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


Since clinical trials are expensive and take a long time to do, artificial aging is implemented for laboratory simulations. Among the several methods, thermal cycling and water storage have been favored. Thermal stresses are capable of acting in two ways: first, crack propagation could be directly induced by cyclic thermal fluctuations through adhesive interfaces, and second, through changing gap dimensions could aggravate the percolation of oral fluids.[19],[20] The ISO TR 11405 (1994) suggested that protocol for thermal cycling is 500 cycles at 5°C–55°C with dwell time of >20 s.[20] However, controversies exist regarding the number of cycles corresponding to 6 months and 1 year of physiologic aging in the oral cavity. Some authors suggested that 10,000 cycles correspond to 1-year in vivo aging. However, most of the authors applied a number of cycles <10,000, showing that 10,000 cycles do not correspond to 1 year of in vivo aging. We used 3000 cycles in this study, which was applied by many authors.[20],[21]

Recently, the adhesive interface aging with a 10% NaOCl solution has been proposed as well. NaOCl is a nonspecific deproteinase that forms superoxide radicals in aqueous solution, which can cause peptide ring oxidation in proteins such as collagen.[22] This degradation potential is responsible for removing organic components from the interface dentin, which is due to its ability to dissolve collagen fibrils enclosed by adhesive resins.[22],[23] It has been shown that aging in 10% NaOCl for 1 h and 3 h indicates very similar degradation patterns and microtensile bond strength to those in aging for 6 months and 12 months of water storage.[22] Therefore, the storage of samples in a 10% NaOCl solution is a fast and reliable method for testing the adhesive interface durability.

The findings of this study showed that both aging procedures significantly reduced the bond strength. In addition, the bond strength in the NaOCl aging was also significantly lower than the thermal cycling group. Unprotected collagen fibrils in the base of hybrid layer may cause higher water absorption and inflation of polymer materials, which may generate the host-derived protease reaction, degrade collagen fibrils, and deteriorate the adhesive bond.[24] Furthermore, differences in hydrophilicity due to different concentrations of 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) in the adhesive composition can also affect the hydrolytic stability of adhesives. HEMA can keep water, and water absorption is strengthened in the presence of HEMA. Given that ABU is an adhesive containing HEMA, aging can cause hydrolytic degradation and reduce the strength of this adhesive interface, as time goes on.[25],[26],[27]

Similarly, Taschner et al. reported a significant decrease in bond strength of another HEMA-containing UAS, Scotchbond universal, after 6 months of water storage and NaOCl aging. Furthermore, they showed that NaOCl aging decreases bond strength more than that by water storage.[11] Another recent study revealed a significant reduction in bond strength of several UASs including ABU after 1 year of water storage as well.[18] Infiltration of adhesive monomers into interfibrillar collagen spaces depends not only on hydrophilicity but also on the molecular size of monomers. Demineralized collagen network acts as molecular sieves, in a manner in which molecules smaller than 1000Da could easily be diffused into interfibrillar collagen spaces, whereas larger molecules could not.[28] It seems that the effect of HEMA in water sorption and bond deterioration is so much so that it can neutralize the positive effect of 10-MDP. Considering that 10-MDP has a relatively stable hydrophobic bond with collagen, while HEMA does not interact with collagen, interaction between these molecules in adhesive composition may produce aggregates that reduce the hydrophobicity of 10-MDP and compromise its interaction with collagen.[29],[30] While, as suggested in the literature, 10-MDP-containing adhesives have better bond durability.[31],[32]

As another remarkable finding, the present study showed that the double application of the UAS has no significant effect on the dentin bond strength. On the other hand, the double application did not increase the immediate bond strength and durability. This is in agreement with Taschner et al. who reported that UAS showed no difference between single- and double-application strategies irrespective of storage condition. Contrarily, Fujiwara et al. showed that the double application of UAS increases the SBS and shear fatigue strength.[12] Although it is not possible to justify such a difference in the results of studies with certainty, the bond strength of the UAS and its durability seems to be largely influenced by its application strategy to the substrate and to some extent its acidity. Contrary to the present study, Fujiwara et al. applied UAS with active agitation method with twice time as long as manufacturer's instructions. Furthermore, they used UAS which has more acidity than the ABU. Several studies have shown that the active agitation and the longer duration of application cause functional monomers to penetrate more into the dentin structure, which results in more uniform adhesive layer. Furthermore, In the case of ABU, there are two different solvents in the composition (ethanol and water), which have different evaporation power. In a thinner layer, these two substances are easily evaporated, but in a thicker layer, ethanol evaporates faster and the volume of ethanol decreases before reaching the azeotrope, allows the resin monomers to be fall out in the solution, and causes phase separation inside the adhesive layer. This causes incomplete evaporation of the remainder of the adhesive water, reduces the degree of conversion, and reduces its mechanical properties.[9],[33]

Regarding the efficiency of the adhesive application strategy, the results showed that bond strength in ER was greater than SE in the control and thermal cycling groups. However, there was no significant difference between SE and ER in the NaOCl group. Similarly, several studies demonstrated that the ABU adhesive in SE mode shows significantly lower bond strength compared to the ER. In other words, the ABU is the only UAS with lower bond strength in the SE mode compared to ER. ABU is an ultra-mild adhesive (PH = 3.1). The low acidity of ABU is inadequate for effective dentin etching and infiltration of monomers. Etching with phosphoric acid removes the smear layer, accelerates the surface dentin demineralization, and results in the formation of a thick hybrid layer, which is fully integrated with dentin.[32],[34] However, Wagner et al. showed that the bond strength of ABU in SE mode is not significantly different compared to ER. The reason for such differences in the literature may be related to the adhesive application strategy.[35] It has been shown that the use of ultra-mild UAS with active agitation strategy can significantly improve bond strength in comparison with their use according to the manufacturer's instructions.[9]

It should be pointed out that the present study was in vitro and has been designed based on SBS test where the force is applied to the interface monotonically and gradually increasing until the bond is broken. This is very different from clinical conditions and cannot simulate the frequent and cyclic loading factor, which is very important in interface fatigue failure. Therefore, care should be taken in generalizing the results to clinical conditions.


  Conclusion Top


Considering the limitations of this experimental study, it can be concluded that:

  • Using ultra-mild UAS with ER strategy creates higher dentin bond strength compared to the SE method in the control and thermal cycling groups. However, no significant differences were observed between the two application strategies in the NaOCl-aged group
  • The double application might not have any effect on the bond strength and durability of the ultra-mild UAS in any of the ER and SE strategies.


Acknowledgments

The authors express their grateful thanks to Dental and Periodontal Research Centre and the Vice-Chancellor of Research and Technology of Tabriz University of Medical Sciences for their support.

Financial support and sponsorship

This study was financially supported by Dental and Periodontal Research Centre at Vice-Chancellor for Research and Technology, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.

Conflicts of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare that they have no conflicts of interest, real or perceived, financial or non-financial in this article.



 
  References Top

1.
Yiu CK, Pashley EL, Hiraishi N, King NM, Goracci C, Ferrari M, et al. Solvent and water retention in dental adhesive blends after evaporation. Biomaterials 2005;26:6863-72.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Malacarne J, Carvalho RM, de Goes MF, Svizero N, Pashley DH, Tay FR, et al. Water sorption/solubility of dental adhesive resins. Dent Mater 2006;22:973-80.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Belli R, Sartori N, Peruchi LD, Guimarães JC, Vieira LC, Baratieri LN, et al. Effect of multiple coats of ultra-mild all-in-one adhesives on bond strength to dentin covered with two different smear layer thicknesses. J Adhes Dent 2011;13:507-16.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Albuquerque M, Pegoraro M, Mattei G, Reis A, Loguercio AD. Effect of double-application or the application of a hydrophobic layer for improved efficacy of one-step self-etch systems in enamel and dentin. Oper Dent 2008;33:564-70.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Cardenas AFM, Armas-Veja A, Rodriguez Villarreal JP, Siqueira FS, Muniz LP, Campos VS, et al. Influence of the mode of application of universal adhesive systems on adhesive properties to fluorotic enamel. Braz Oral Res 2019;33:e120.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Carvalho CN, Lanza MDS, Dourado LG, Carvalho EM, Bauer J. Impact of solvent evaporation and curing protocol on degree of conversion of etch-and-rinse and multimode adhesives systems. Int J Dent 2019;2019:5496784.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Shiratsuchi K, Tsujimoto A, Takamizawa T, Furuichi T, Tsubota K, Kurokawa H, et al. Influence of warm air-drying on enamel bond strength and surface free-energy of self-etch adhesives. Eur J Oral Sci 2013;121:370-6.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Chowdhury AFMA, Islam R, Alam A, Matsumoto M, Yamauti M, Carvalho RM, et al. Variable smear layer and adhesive application: The pursuit of clinical relevance in bond strength testing. Int J Mol Sci 2019;20. pii: E5381.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Loguercio AD, Muñoz MA, Luque-Martinez I, Hass V, Reis A, Perdigão J. Does active application of universal adhesives to enamel in self-etch mode improve their performance? J Dent 2015;43:1060-70.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Bahari M, Mohammadi N, Alizadeh Oskoee P, Savadi Oskoee S, Davoodi F. Effect of an extra layer of hydrophobic resin on the microleakage of Cl V composite resin restorations with a universal adhesive system. J Investig Clin Dent 2017;8.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Taschner M, Kümmerling M, Lohbauer U, Breschi L, Petschelt A, Frankenberger R. Effect of double-layer application on dentin bond durability of one-step self-etch adhesives. Oper Dent 2014;39:416-26.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Fujiwara S, Takamizawa T, Barkmeier WW, Tsujimoto A, Imai A, Watanabe H, et al. Effect of double-layer application on bond quality of adhesive systems. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2018;77:501-9.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Frankenberger R, Perdigão J, Rosa BT, Lopes M. “No-bottle” vs. “multi-bottle” dentin adhesives – A microtensile bond strength and morphological study. Dent Mater 2001;17:373-80.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Pashley EL, Agee KA, Pashley DH, Tay FR. Effects of one versus two applications of an unfilled, all-in-one adhesive on dentine bonding. J Dent 2002;30:83-90.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Perdigão J, Loguercio AD. Universal or multi-mode adhesives: Why and how? J Adhes Dent 2014;16:193-4.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Perdigão J, Muñoz MA, Sezinando A, Luque-Martinez IV, Staichak R, Reis A, et al. Immediate adhesive properties to dentin and enamel of a universal adhesive associated with a hydrophobic resin coat. Oper Dent 2014;39:489-99.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Chen C, Niu LN, Xie H, Zhang ZY, Zhou LQ, Jiao K, et al. Bonding of universal adhesives to dentine – Old wine in new bottles? J Dent 2015;43:525-36.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Zhang ZY, Tian FC, Niu LN, Ochala K, Chen C, Fu BP, et al. Defying ageing: An expectation for dentine bonding with universal adhesives? J Dent 2016;45:43-52.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Gale MS, Darvell BW. Thermal cycling procedures for laboratory testing of dental restorations. J Dent 1999;27:89-99.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Morresi AL, D'Amario M, Capogreco M, Gatto R, Marzo G, D'Arcangelo C, et al. Thermal cycling for restorative materials: Does a standardized protocol exist in laboratory testing? A literature review. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2014;29:295-308.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Blumer L, Schmidli F, Weiger R, Fischer J. A systematic approach to standardize artificial aging of resin composite cements. Dent Mater 2015;31:855-63.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Garbui BU, Botta SB, Reis AF, Matos AB. Comparison of chemical aging and water immersion time on durability of resin-dentin interface produced by an etch-and-rinse adhesive. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012;13:464-71.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Toledano M, Osorio R, Albaladejo A, Aguilera FS, Osorio E. Differential effect of in vitro degradation on resin-dentin bonds produced by self-etch versus total-etch adhesives. J Biomed Mater Res A 2006;77:128-35.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Rosa WL, Piva E, Silva AF. Bond strength of universal adhesives: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2015;43:765-76.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Tekçe N, Tuncer S, Demirci M, Balci S. Do matrix metalloproteinase inhibitors improve the bond durability of universal dental adhesives? Scanning 2016;38:535-44.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Hosaka K, Nakajima M, Takahashi M, Itoh S, Ikeda M, Tagami J, et al. Relationship between mechanical properties of one-step self-etch adhesives and water sorption. Dent Mater 2010;26:360-7.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Van Landuyt KL, Snauwaert J, Peumans M, De Munck J, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. The role of HEMA in one-step self-etch adhesives. Dent Mater 2008;24:1412-9.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Takahashi M, Nakajima M, Tagami J, Scheffel DL, Carvalho RM, Mazzoni A, et al. The importance of size-exclusion characteristics of type I collagen in bonding to dentin matrices. Acta Biomater 2013;9:9522-8.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Hiraishi N, Tochio N, Kigawa T, Otsuki M, Tagami J. Molecular level evaluation on HEMA interaction with a collagen model. Dent Mater 2015;31:88-92.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Hiraishi N, Tochio N, Kigawa T, Otsuki M, Tagami J. Role of 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate in the interaction of dental monomers with collagen studied by saturation transfer difference NMR. J Dent 2014;42:484-9.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Yoshihara K, Yoshida Y, Hayakawa S, Nagaoka N, Torii Y, Osaka A, et al. Self-etch monomer-calcium salt deposition on dentin. J Dent Res 2011;90:602-6.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Oskoee SS, Bahari M, Kimyai S, Navimipour EJ, Firouzmandi M. Shear bond strength of self-etching adhesive systems with different pH values to bleached and/or CPP-ACP-treated enamel. J Adhes Dent 2012;14:447-52.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Cardenas AM, Siqueira F, Rocha J, Szesz AL, Anwar M, El-Askary F, et al. Influence of conditioning time of universal adhesives on adhesive properties and enamel-etching pattern. Oper Dent 2016;41:481-90.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Ebrahimi Chaharom ME, Ajami AA, Bahari M, Rezazadeh H. Effect of smear layer thickness and pH of self-adhesive resin cements on the shear bond strength to dentin. Indian J Dent Res 2017;28:681-6.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Wagner A, Wendler M, Petschelt A, Belli R, Lohbauer U. Bonding performance of universal adhesives in different etching modes. J Dent 2014;42:800-7.  Back to cited text no. 35
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]



 

Top
 
 
Search
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed134    
    Printed2    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded27    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal