Influence of surface wetness on bonding effectiveness of universal adhesives in etch‐and‐rinse mode

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether surface wetness would influence the bonding effectiveness of universal adhesives in etch‐and‐rinse mode. All‐Bond Universal (AB), G‐Premio Bond (GP), Prime & Bond Active (PB), and Scotchbond Universal Adhesive (SU) were evaluated. Initial bond strengths and bond‐fatigue strengths of universal adhesives to both wet and dry enamel and dentin in etch‐and‐rinse mode were determined. Scanning electron microscopy observations of the adhesive interfaces were also conducted. The bond‐fatigue durability of universal adhesive to enamel in etch‐and‐rinse mode was influenced by the surface wetness, unlike that to dentin. The bond fatigue durability of AB and GP to dentin in etch‐and‐rinse mode was different depending on the surface wetness, unlike that of PB and SU. The thicknesses of the adhesive or hybrid layer of resin–dentin interfaces were not influenced by the surface wetness, but the length of resin tags in the wet group was longer than in the dry group. Some universal adhesives with the addition of specific components and optimization of water content can achieve stable bonds regardless of surface wetness, but the surface wetness of dentin is still a significant factor for universal adhesive bonding in etch‐and rinse mode, unlike that of enamel.     

Enzymatic degradation of adhesive–dentin interfaces produced by mild self‐etch adhesives

De Munck J, Mine A, Van den Steen PE, Van Landuyt KL, Poitevin A, Opdenakker G, Van Meerbeek B. Enzymatic degradation of adhesive–dentin interfaces produced by mild self‐etch adhesives.
Eur J Oral Sci 2010; 118: 494–501. © 2010 Eur J Oral Sci Endogenous matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) released by adhesive procedures may degrade collagen in the hybrid layer and so compromise the bonding effectiveness of etch‐and‐rinse adhesives. In this study, endogenous enzymatic degradation was evaluated for several simplified self‐etch adhesives. In addition, primers were modified by adding two MMP inhibitors: chlorhexidine, a commonly used disinfectant, but also a non‐specific MMP inhibitor; and SB‐3CT, a specific inhibitor of MMP‐2 and MMP‐9. Gelatin zymography of fresh human dentin powder was used to identify the enzymes released by the adhesives. Micro‐tensile bond strength (μTBS) testing was used to assess the mechanical properties of resin–dentin interfaces over time. In none of the experimental groups treated with the mild self‐etch adhesives was MMP‐2 and/or MMP‐9 identified. Also, no difference in the μTBS was measured for the inhibitor‐modified and the control inhibitor‐free adhesives after 6 months of water storage. It is concluded that in contrast to etch‐and‐rinse adhesives, the involvement of endogenous MMP‐2 and MMP‐9 in the bond‐degradation process is minimal for mild self‐etch adhesives.     

Role of preliminary etching for one‐step self‐etch adhesives

Taschner M, Nato F, Mazzoni A, Frankenberger R, Krämer N, Di Lenarda R, Petschelt A, Breschi L. Role of preliminary etching for one‐step self‐etch adhesives.
Eur J Oral Sci 2010; 118: 517–524. © 2010 Eur J Oral Sci The aim of this study was to analyse the effect of preliminary phosphoric acid etching of enamel and dentine before the application of two, one‐step self‐etch adhesive systems. The systems were applied onto acid‐etched or smear‐layer‐covered enamel and dentine. The treatment groups were as follows: group 1, Adper Easy Bond (3M ESPE) on etched substrate; group 2, Adper Easy Bond (control); group 3, iBond Self‐Etch (Heraeus Kulzer) on etched substrate; and group 4, iBond Self‐Etch (control). Enamel and dentine bond strengths were calculated using microshear and microtensile bond‐strength tests. Additional specimens were prepared to evaluate nanoleakage at the dentine–adhesive interface and were investigated using light microscopy or transmission electron microscopy. Both adhesives demonstrated higher microshear bond strengths when enamel was pre‐acid‐etched with phosphoric acid (Adper Easy Bond 28.7 ± 4.8 MPa; iBond Self‐Etch 19.7 ± 3.6 MPa) compared with controls (Adper Easy Bond 19.2 ± 3.3 MPa; iBond Self‐Etch 17.5 ± 2.7 MPa) and increased microtensile bond strength when applied on acid‐etched (Adper Easy Bond 35.8 ± 5.7 MPa; iBond Self‐Etch 24.3 ± 7.9 MPa) vs. smear‐layer‐covered dentine (Adper Easy Bond 26.9 ± 6.2 MPa; iBond Self‐Etch 17.6 ± 4.3 MPa). Adper Easy Bond showed lower nanoleakage than iBond Self‐Etch, irrespective of preliminary etching. The results of this study support the use of phosphoric acid etching before the application of one‐step self‐etch adhesive systems.     

Comparison between universal adhesives and two‐step self‐etch adhesives in terms of dentin bond fatigue durability in self‐etch mode

This aim of this study was to compare universal adhesives and two‐step self‐etch adhesives in terms of dentin bond fatigue durability in self‐etch mode. Three universal adhesives – Clearfil Universal, G‐Premio Bond, and Scotchbond Universal Adhesive – and three‐two‐step self‐etch adhesives – Clearfil SE Bond, Clearfil SE Bond 2, and OptiBond XTR – were used. The initial shear bond strength and shear fatigue strength of resin composite bonded to adhesive on dentin in self‐etch mode were determined. Scanning electron microscopy observations of fracture surfaces after bond strength tests were also made. The initial shear bond strength of universal adhesives was material dependent, unlike that of two‐step self‐etch adhesives. The shear fatigue strength of Scotchbond Universal Adhesive was not significantly different from that of two‐step self‐etch adhesives, unlike the other universal adhesives. The shear fatigue strength of universal adhesives differed depending on the type of adhesive, unlike those of two‐step self‐etch adhesives. The results of this study encourage the continued use of two‐step self‐etch adhesive over some universal adhesives but suggest that changes to the composition of universal adhesives may lead to a dentin bond fatigue durability similar to that of two‐step self‐etch adhesives.     

Influence of oxygen‐inhibited layer on dentin bond strength of chemical‐cured resin composite

This study evaluated the influence of an oxygen‐inhibited layer on the surface free energies of three single‐step self‐etch adhesives and on the bond strength of chemical‐cured resin. Adhesives were applied to bovine dentin and light irradiated, and the oxygen‐inhibited layer was either retained or removed. Surface free energies were determined by measuring the contact angles of test liquids placed on the cured adhesives. Dentin bond strengths of chemical‐cured resin with and without the oxygen‐inhibited layer were measured. Ultrastructural observation of the restorative–dentin interface was made by scanning electron microscopy. For all surfaces, values of the estimated surface tension component, Lifshitz‐Van der Waals force (γ_S^LW), were relatively constant. Values for the Lewis acid (γ_S⁺) component increased slightly when the oxygen‐inhibited layer was removed, whereas those of the Lewis base (γ_S^?) component decreased significantly. The bond strength of the chemical‐cured resin composite was significantly higher in specimens without an oxygen‐inhibited layer (7.6–8.0 MPa) than in those with an oxygen‐inhibited layer (4.8–5.2 MPa). Small gaps between adhesive and resin composite were found for the group with an oxygen‐inhibited layer. These results indicate that the absence of an oxygen‐inhibited layer in single‐step self‐etch adhesives promotes higher dentin bond strength of the chemical‐cured resin.     

Bond strength of newer dentin bonding agents in different clinical situations

This study compared the tensile bond strengths of different adhesive systems to different dentinal substrate conditions. The adhesive systems used were Adper Single Bond 2 total etch, XP Bond total etch, and two all-in-one adhesives, Adper Easy One and Xeno V. Ninety-six intact human premolars extracted on periodontal or orthodontic grounds were collected and stored in 0.9% physiologic saline for less than four weeks. Teeth were carefully cleaned to remove the soft tissue remnants. The occlusal surfaces were ground until the level of the dentinoenamel junction, exposing superficial dentin using a low-speed diamond disc. A standard smear layer was produced by wet sanding the dentin surface with 600-grit silicon carbide sandpaper for 40 seconds. The 96 specimens were embedded in autopolymerizing acrylic resin and divided into four groups of 24 each based on the dentin bonding agents used. Each group consisted of 24 specimens, which were further divided into two subgroups of 12 specimens each, moist dentin and dentin air-dried for 10 seconds. The regions of interest for adhesion were demarcated in each sample using adhesive tape, with a 4-mm–diameter hole isolating the peripheral region, and each adhesive system was employed. Four adhesive systems, two total etch and two self-etching adhesive, were applied to different dentinal substrates as per the manufacturers' instructions. Following the adhesive application, the specimens were restored with composite material using a metallic mold measuring 5 mm in diameter and 5 mm in height to keep the material in cylindrical form and were light cured per manufacturers' instructions. After being stored for 24 hours in distilled water at room temperature, the specimens were thermocycled for 550 cycles at temperatures ranging from 5°C to 60°C with a dwell time of 15 seconds in each bath and a transfer time of five seconds. The tensile bond strengths were determined using a Universal loading machine (Lloyd Universal Testing Machine) at a cross-head speed of 1 mm/min. On moist dentin, total-etch adhesives showed higher bond strength than did the all-in-one adhesives. Under the dry dentin condition, XP Bond exhibited significantly higher bond strength than did the Adper Single Bond 2 and two all-in-one adhesives, Adper Easy One and Xeno V.     

Ten‐years degradation of resin–dentin bonds

Hashimoto M, Fujita S, Nagano F, Ohno H, Endo K. Ten‐years degradation of resin–dentin bonds. Eur J Oral Sci 2010; 118: 404–410. © 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2010 Eur J Oral Sci The purpose of this study was to evaluate the durability of resin–dentin bonds in 10‐yr water‐storage testing. Resin–dentin bonded bulk specimens were prepared using six commercially available resin adhesives. The resin–dentin bonded specimens were stored in water for 24 h (control group) or for 10 yr (experimental groups). After each storage period, the specimens were sectioned to make specimen beams and then subjected to a microtensile bond test. After the bond test, fractured surfaces were examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). In addition, interfacial observation of silver nanoleakage was performed using the backscatter electron mode of SEM. The bond strengths of four of the six adhesive systems tested decreased significantly after 10 yr. However, no significant bond‐strength reduction was recorded for the other two systems. The interfacial observations showed water tree propagation in the bonding resin layer as a typical morphological change after aging for five of the six adhesives tested. Water tree propagation may be a symptom of degradation in the resin bonding layer of resin–dentin bonds.     

Glutaraldehyde collagen cross‐linking stabilizes resin–dentin interfaces and reduces bond degradation

This study evaluated the stability of resin–dentin interfaces treated with glutaraldehyde‐containing agents, and assessed collagen degradation in dentin matrices treated with Gluma. Microtensile bond strength (μTBS) was evaluated 24 h and 6 months after treatment with three desensitizers (Gluma Desensitizer, Gluma Desensitizer Power Gel, and MicroPrime G) and two etch‐and‐rinse adhesives (Comfort Bond & Desensitizer and iBond TE). Demineralized beams of human dentin were treated with water or Gluma, and the degradation of collagen in these beams was assessed by quantification of the dry mass loss and of the amount of hydroxyproline released from hydrolyzed specimens after 1 or 4 wk. All groups demonstrated significant reduction in μTBS after 6 months, except for Gluma Desensitizer and iBond TE groups, which showed decreases of 7.2% and 10.8%, respectively. The most prevalent failure mode was ‘mixed’. Significantly less hydroxyproline was released from Gluma‐treated beams than from control beams after 4 wk. Beams treated with Gluma yielded significantly less dry mass loss than did beams in the control group. Collagen cross‐linking with glutaraldehyde‐containing agents may assist in the stabilization of resin–dentin bonds by reducing the amount of collagen solubilized from dental matrices in the hybrid layer. In turn, this may contribute to the preservation of adhesive interfaces.     

Effect of desensitizing agents on the microtensile bond strength of two‐step etch‐and‐rinse adhesives to dentin

Desensitizers can be used to control postoperative sensitivity in adhesive restorations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of desensitizing agents on the bond strength of two‐step etch‐and‐rinse adhesive systems to dentin. Forty‐two human molars were sectioned to obtain 3‐mm‐thick dentin discs. The discs were divided into three groups (n = 14 in each) – no‐treatment control group (CT), and oxalic acid [BisBlock (BB)] and calcium phosphate [Desensibilize Nano‐P (NP)] desensitizers – before the application of two adhesive systems [Adper Single Bond Plus (SB) and One‐Step Plus (OSP)]. A nanoparticle composite resin was used to create a 3‐mm‐thick build‐up. The specimens were stored in distilled water for 24 h before a microtensile bond‐strength test was performed. The failure modes were determined using a stereomicroscope at 100 × magnification. Specimens were sectioned perpendicular to the interface for scanning electron microscopy analyses. The CT‐SB group exhibited the highest bond strength, differing significantly from BB‐SB and BB‐OSP groups. Mixed failures were prevalent for all groups. Scanning electron microscopy revealed a continuous hybrid layer and resin tags in all groups. Dentin bond strength of etch‐and‐rinse adhesive systems was reduced by an oxalic acid desensitizer but was not affected by a calcium phosphate‐containing desensitizer.     

Effects of multiple adhesive coatings on dentin bonding

Simple changes to bonding techniques can improve resin-dentin bond strengths. This study evaluated the effect of multiple consecutive coatings of adhesive resin on dentin by measuring both microtensile bond strength and nano-leakage following exposure to ammoniacal silver nitrate. Resin-dentin bonded specimens were prepared using two total-etch adhesives (OptiBond Solo Plus/Kerr or Single Bond/3M ESPE). During bonding, resin application and air evaporation were done 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 or 8 times on acid-etched, moist dentin surfaces. Mean microtensile bond strengths were evaluated by two-way ANOVA and Fisher's PLSD test (p<0.05; n=16 for each group). Additionally, nanoleakage of silver nitrate was evaluated by transmission electron microscopy (TEM). The results indicated that bond strengths increased with each coating up to four coats. Nanoleakage decreased with each coat, becoming very small after four or more coats. This adhesive application method can be easily applied to clinical practice, thereby improving the quality of resin-dentin bonds.     

Influence of ageing on self‐etch adhesives: one‐step vs. two‐step systems

The aim of this study was to evaluate microtensile bond strength (μTBS) to dentine, interfacial nanoleakage expression, and stability after ageing, of two‐step vs. one‐step self‐etch adhesives. Human molars were cut to expose middle/deep dentine, assigned to groups (n = 15), and treated with the following bonding systems: (i) Optibond XTR (a two‐step self‐etch adhesive; Kerr), (ii) Clearfil SE Bond (a two‐step self‐etch adhesive; Kuraray), (iii) Adper Easy Bond (a one‐step self‐etch adhesive; 3M ESPE), and (iv) Bond Force (a one‐step self‐etch adhesive; Tokuyama). Specimens were processed for μTBS testing after 24 h, 6 months, or 1 yr of storage in artificial saliva at 37°C. Nanoleakage expression was examined in similarly processed additional specimens. At baseline the μTBS results ranked in the following order: Adper Easy Bond = Optibond XTR ≥Clearfil SE = Bond Force, and interfacial nanoleakage analysis showed Clearfil SE Bond = Adper Easy Bond = Optibond XTR> Bond Force. After 1 yr of storage, Optibond XTR, Clearfil SE Bond, and Adper Easy Bond showed higher μTBS and lower interfacial nanoleakage expression compared with Bond Force. In conclusion, immediate bond strength, nanoleakage expression, and stability over time were not related to the number of steps of the bonding systems, but to their chemical formulations.     

Preservation of resin–dentin interfaces treated with benzalkonium chloride adhesive blends

Reducing collagen degradation within hybrid layers may contribute to the preservation of adhesive interfaces. This study evaluated the stability of resin–dentin interfaces treated with benzalkonium chloride (BAC)‐modified adhesive blends and assessed collagen degradation in dentin matrices treated with BAC. The etch‐and‐rinse adhesive, Adper Single Bond Plus, modified with 0.5% and 1.0% BAC, was evaluated for microtensile bond strength (μTBS) and nanoleakage (NL) after 24 h and 1 yr. Thirty completely demineralized dentin beams from human molars were dipped for 60 s in deionized water (DW; control), or in 0.5% or 1.0% BAC, and then incubated in simulated body fluid (SBF). Collagen degradation was assessed by quantification of the dry mass loss and the amount of hydroxyproline (HYP) released from hydrolyzed specimens after 1 or 4 wk. Although all groups demonstrated a significant increase in NL after 1 yr, adhesive modified with 0.5% BAC showed stable bond strength after 1 yr (9% decrease) relative to the control (44% decrease). Significantly less HYP release and dry mass loss were observed for both 0.5% and 1.0% BAC relative to the control. This in vitro study demonstrates that BAC contributes to the preservation of resin–dentin bonds for up to 1 yr by reducing collagen degradation.     

Microtensile bond strength of contemporary adhesives to primary enamel and dentin

The purpose of this study was to assess bond strength of three self-etching and two total-etch adhesive systems bonded to primary tooth enamel and dentin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty extracted primary human molars were selected and abraded in order to create flat buccal enamel and occlusal dentin surfaces. Teeth were assigned to one of the adhesive systems: Adper Scotch Bond Multi Purpose, Adper Single Bond 2, Adper Prompt L-Pop, Clearfil SE Bond and AdheSE. Immediately to adhesive application, a composite resin (Filtek Z250) block was built up. After 3 months of water storage, each sample was sequentially sectioned in order to obtain sticks with a square cross-sectional area of about 0.72 mm2. The specimens were fixed lengthways to a microtensile device and tested using a universal testing machine with a 50-N load cell at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Microtensile bond strength values were recorded in MPa and compared by Analysis of Variance and the post hoc Tukey test (a = 0.05). RESULTS: In enamel, Clearfil SE Bond presented the highest values, followed by Adper Single Bond 2, AdheSE and Adper Scotch Bond Multi Purpose, without significant difference. The highest values in dentin were obtained with Adper Scotch Bond Multi Purpose and all other adhesives did not present significant different values from that, except Adper Prompt L-Pop that achieved the lowest bond strength in both substrates. Adper Scotch Bond Multi Purpose and Adper Single Bond 2 presented significantly lower values in enamel than in dentin although all other adhesives presented similar results in both substrates. CONCLUSIONS: contemporary adhesive systems present similar behaviors when bonded to primary teeth, with the exception of the one-step self-etching system; and self-etching systems can achieve bond strength values as good in enamel as in dentin of primary teeth.     

TEM下自酸蚀粘结剂的两种模式牙本质纳米渗漏观察

目的：观察并评价3种自酸蚀粘结剂(Clearfil^TM SE Bond、Adper^TM Prompt^TM、PANAVIA^TM F)牙本质粘结界面的纳米渗漏。方法：选取12颗无龋坏人磨牙,用600目碳化硅砂纸在流水冲洗下预备出统一的牙本质粘结面玷污层。分别用3种自酸蚀粘结剂按使用说明进行粘结处理。每颗牙齿垂直于粘结面切割出5个0．9mm厚粘结试件,分别避光贮存于硝酸银、氨化硝酸银溶液中24h,在TEM下观察牙本质粘结界面纳米渗漏。结果：在TEM下观察到3种自酸蚀粘结剂牙本质粘结界面混合层中呈网状、点状两种模式分布的纳米渗漏。结论：自酸蚀粘结剂由于其自身的组份特性,牙本质粘结界面均存在不同程度的纳米渗漏。     

Influence of delayed placement of composites over cured adhesives on dentin bond strength of single-application self-etch systems

This study examined the relationship between delay in composite placement over cured adhesives and the dentin bond strength of several single-application self-etch adhesive systems. The adhesive system/resin composite combinations used were: Adper Prompt L-Pop/Filtek Z250 (AP), AQ Bond Plus/Metafil C (AQ), Fluoro Bond Shake One/Beautifil (FB), G-Bond/Solare (GB), One-Up Bond F Plus/Palfique Estelite (OF), Xeno IICF Bond/Xeno CF (XE). Bovine mandibular incisors were mounted in self-curing resin and wet ground with #600 SiC to expose labial dentin. The adhesives were applied according to each manufacturer's instructions, and resin pastes were condensed into a mold (?4x2 mm) immediately, and 1, 2, 5 and 10 minutes after light irradiation of the adhesives. Ten samples per test group were stored in 37 degrees C water for 24 hours, then shear tested at a crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/minute. One-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's HSD test (alpha = 0.05) was done. SEM observations of the dentin surface after the tests were also conducted. Dentin bond strength ranged from 9.5 +/- 2.2 to 14.0 +/- 2.4 MPa for AP, 7.3 +/- 2.2 to 12.2 +/- 3.1 MPa for AQ, 10.0 +/- 3.5 to 16.3 +/- 2.4 MPa for FB, 11.4 +/- 1.5 to 16.3 +/- 1.2 MPa for GB, 14.2 +/- 3.4 to 15.1 +/- 3.0 MPa for OF and 11.5 +/- 2.4 to 15.9 +/- 2.2 MPa for XE. Except for OF, no significant differences were found among the 2 to 10 minute delayed placement groups for the systems used. Significant lower bond strengths were obtained for the immediate placement groups except for OF. From SEM observations, cohesive failure of the dentin surface was more pronounced with the longer delay in placement. The data suggest that delayed composite placement over the cured adhesives are suggested for optimum dentin bond strength of single-application self-etch adhesive systems.     

Shear fatigue strength of resin composite bonded to dentin at physiological frequency

The purpose of this study was to examine the shear fatigue strengths of a resin composite bonded to dentin. Three adhesive systems – a two‐step self‐etch adhesive (OptiBond XTR; Kerr) and two universal adhesives [Scotchbond Universal (3M ESPE) and G‐Premio Bond (GC)] – were used in self‐etch mode to bond a resin composite to dentin at a physiologic frequency of 2 Hz over 50,000, 100,000, and 1,000,000 cycles. A staircase method of fatigue testing was used. Twenty specimens were used for each test condition. There was no significant difference in shear fatigue strength across the cycling periods for the three individual adhesives. Differences in shear fatigue strength were found among the three adhesives within each cycling period. Regardless of the adhesive used in self‐etch mode for bonding a resin composite to dentin, shear fatigue strength was not influenced by the number of cycles used for testing.     

OPTIONS FOR DENTIN/ENAMEL BONDING: PART II

Four categories of resin‐based dentin/enamel adhesives are currently available. These include the three‐step etch‐and‐rinse, “one‐bottle” etch‐and‐rinse, two‐step self‐etch primer systems, and “all‐in‐one” self‐etch adhesives. In consecutive issues of the journal, the Critical Appraisal series will present salient publications on research in each of the categories. The first installment focused on the three‐step etch‐and‐rinse systems and the series continues with this paper on the one‐bottle etch‐and‐rinse systems.     

Effect of air-drying time of single-application self-etch adhesives on dentin bond strength

This study examined the effect of air-drying time of adhesives on the dentin bond strength of several single-application self-etch adhesive systems. The adhesive/resin composite combinations used were: Adper Prompt L-Pop/Filtek Z250 (AP), Clearfil Tri-S Bond/Clearfil AP-X (CT), Fluoro Bond Shake One/Beautifil (FB), G-Bond/Gradia Direct (GB) and One-Up Bond F Plus/Palfique Estelite (OF). Bovine mandibular incisors were mounted in self-curing resin and wet ground with #600 SiC to expose labial dentin. Adhesives were applied according to each manufacturer's instructions followed by air-drying time for 0 (without air-drying), 5 and 10 seconds. After light irradiation of the adhesives, the resin composites were condensed into a mold (phi4x2 mm) and polymerized. Ten samples per test group were stored in 37 degrees C distilled water for 24 hours; they were then shear tested at a crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/minute. One-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's HSD tests (alpha = 0.05) were done. FE-SEM observations of the resin/dentin interface were also conducted. Dentin bond strength varied with the different air drying times and ranged from 5.8 +/- 2.4 to 13.9 +/- 2.8 MPa for AP, 4.9 +/- 1.5 to 17.1 +/- 2.3 MPa for CT, 7.9 +/- 2.8 to 13.8 +/- 2.4 MPa for FB, 3.7 +/- 1.4 to 13.4 +/- 1.2 MPa for GB and 4.6 +/- 2.1 to 13.7 +/- 2.6 MPa for OF. With longer air drying of adhesives, no significant changes in bond strengths were found for the systems used except for OF. Significantly lower bond strengths were obtained for the 10-second air-drying group for OF. From FE-SEM observations, gaps between the cured adhesive and resin composites were observed for the specimens without the air drying of adhesives except for OF. The data suggests that, with four of the single-application self-etch adhesive systems, air drying is essential to obtain adequate dentin bond strengths, but increased drying time does not significantly influence bond strength. For the other system studied, the bond strength of the non-air dried group was not significantly different from the five second drying time, but prolonged drying was very detrimental to bond strength. For all five of the systems studied, a five-second air-drying time appeared to be appropriate.     

OPTIONS FOR DENTIN/ENAMEL BONDING: PART IV

Four categories of resin‐based dentin/enamel adhesives are currently available. These include the three‐step etch‐&‐rinse, “one‐bottle” etch‐&‐rinse, two‐step self‐etch primer systems, and “all‐in‐one” self‐etch adhesives. In consecutive issues of the Journal, the Critical Appraisal series is presenting salient publications on research in each of the categories. This final installment of the series focuses on the all‐in‐one self‐etch adhesives.     

OPTIONS FOR DENTIN/ENAMEL BONDING: PART III

Four categories of resin‐based dentin/enamel adhesives are currently available. These include the three‐step etch‐&‐rinse, “one‐bottle” etch‐&‐rinse, two‐step self‐etch primer systems, and “all‐in‐one” self‐etch adhesives. In consecutive issues of the Journal, the Critical Appraisal series is presenting salient publications on research in each of the categories. The first two installments focused on the etch‐&‐rinse systems. The series continues with this review of papers on the two‐step self‐etch primer systems.