Evaluating the advancements in a recently introduced universal adhesive compared to its predecessor

The dental adhesive market is constantly evolving to meet the demands of dentists and patients, but new products and upgrades should be rigorously evaluated before being used in clinical practice. This study investigated the physicomechanical properties and dentin bonding efficacy of a newly upgrade...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of dental sciences 2024-07, Vol.19 (3), p.1609-1619
Hauptverfasser: Alam, Arefin, Yamauti, Monica, Chowdhury, Abu Faem Mohammad Almas, Wang, Xiaohong, Álvarez-Lloret, Pedro, Zuñiga-Heredia, Enrique-Ezra, Cifuentes-Jiménez, Carolina, Dua, Rupak, Iijima, Masahiro, Sano, Hidehiko
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The dental adhesive market is constantly evolving to meet the demands of dentists and patients, but new products and upgrades should be rigorously evaluated before being used in clinical practice. This study investigated the physicomechanical properties and dentin bonding efficacy of a newly upgraded universal adhesive compared to its predecessor. Twenty-four molars were divided into four groups (n = 6/group) based on adhesive (new vs. predecessor) and application mode [self-etch (SE) vs. etch-and-rinse (ER)] for evaluating their dentin microtensile bond strength (μTBS), failure pattern, and bonding interface. Additional thirty-six molars’ crowns were perpendicularly sectioned to obtain flat mid-coronal dentin discs. The opposing dentin surfaces of each disc received contrasting treatments (new/predecessor adhesive applied in SE/ER mode), resulting in six interventions. The bonded discs (n = 6/intervention) were used to assess the adhesives’ survival probability employing a double-sided μTBS test. The other physicomechanical properties examined were adhesives’ oxygen inhibition layer (OIL), viscosity, hardness, elastic modulus, degree of conversion (DC), and in-situ DC. Both adhesive versions showed similar μTBS (P > 0.05), failure pattern (P > 0.05), and survival probability (P > 0.008). ER mode promoted resin tag formation and exhibited a slender adhesive layer for both adhesives. The newer adhesive version showed a thinner adhesive layer in general with narrower OIL (P 
ISSN:1991-7902
2213-8862
DOI:10.1016/j.jds.2023.12.004