Skip to content

Effect of Alternative Self-Etch Applications on Dentin Bond Strength of “No Wait Concept” Universal Adhesives

MetadataDetails
Publication Date2021-02-15
JournalOdovtos - International Journal of Dental Sciences
AuthorsTuğba SERİN KALAY, Beyza Zaim
InstitutionsKaradeniz Technical University
Citations4
AnalysisFull AI Review Included

This study evaluates the mechanical performance (microtensile bond strength, µTBS) of three “no wait concept” universal dental adhesives when applied using alternative self-etch protocols on dentin substrates.

  • Objective: Determine the effect of application time (Immediate, Prolonged Wait, Active Rubbing) on the resin-dentin bond strength of three commercial multi-mode adhesives: Clearfil Universal Bond Quick (CUQ), G-Premio Bond (GPB), and Tokuyama Universal Bond (TUB).
  • Key Finding on “No Wait”: The manufacturer-recommended “Immediate Application” (IA) procedure resulted in the lowest µTBS values across all tested adhesives, rejecting the null hypothesis.
  • Performance Enhancement: Prolonged application time (PA, 10-second wait) significantly increased µTBS for all adhesives compared to IA (p < 0.05), attributed to increased monomer infiltration and solvent evaporation.
  • Active Application (AA) Success: Active rubbing (AA, 10 seconds) significantly increased µTBS for the light-cured adhesives (CUQ and GPB), with GPB achieving the highest overall mean strength (23.11 MPa).
  • Self-Curing Limitation: The self-curing adhesive (TUB) exhibited a significantly lower µTBS under active application (11.97 MPa), suggesting that the rubbing action negatively interferes with its chemical polymerization process (Borate Catalyst/3D-SR technology).
  • Material Chemistry Impact: Higher bond strengths in CUQ and GPB are linked to the presence of the 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (MDP) monomer, which forms stable ionic bonds with dentin calcium.
ParameterValueUnitContext
Test TypeMicrotensile Bond Strength (µTBS)MPaMechanical performance metric
Highest Mean µTBS (GPB, AA)23.11 ± 6.30MPaG-Premio Bond, Active Application/Rubbing
Lowest Mean µTBS (TUB, AA)11.97 ± 2.69MPaTokuyama Universal Bond, Active Application/Rubbing
Dentin Surface Preparation600-gritSiC paperStandardized smear layer creation
Specimen Cross-Section1mm2Area subjected to tensile force
Tensile Test Speed1mm/minCrosshead speed during mechanical testing
Storage Condition37°CDistilled water, 24 hours post-bonding
CUQ pH2.3N/AClearfil Universal Bond Quick (Ethanol/Water solvent)
GPB pH1.5N/AG-Premio Bond (Acetone solvent)
TUB pH2.2N/ATokuyama Universal Bond (Isopropyl Alcohol solvent)
Key Monomers (CUQ, GPB)10-MDPN/AMonomer responsible for chemical bonding to HAp

The study utilized extracted, non-carious human third molars prepared to expose mid-coronal dentin surfaces standardized with 600-grit SiC paper.

  1. Specimen Preparation: Teeth were embedded in self-curing acrylic resin. The occlusal third was removed using a low-speed diamond saw under running water to expose dentin.
  2. Adhesive Grouping: Twenty-seven teeth were divided into three main groups based on the adhesive used:
    • Clearfil Universal Bond Quick (CUQ, Kuraray Noritake)
    • G-Premio Bond (GPB, GC Corp)
    • Tokuyama Universal Bond (TUB, Tokuyama Dental)
  3. Application Protocols (Subgroups, n=3 teeth per subgroup):
    • IA (Immediate Application): Adhesive applied and immediately subjected to air-dry according to manufacturer instructions (e.g., medium air-dry for 5s for CUQ).
    • PA (Prolonged Application): Adhesive applied followed by a 10-second wait before air-drying.
    • AA (Active Application/Rubbing): Adhesive applied and rubbed onto the dentin surface for 10 seconds before air-drying.
  4. Restoration and Curing: Two layers of 2-mm thick composite resin (Filtek Z250) were applied and cured using a LED light-curing unit (Elipar S10).
  5. Sectioning and Testing: After 24 hours of storage in 37°C distilled water, bonded teeth were cut into 1 mm2 sections (n=15 sections tested per subgroup). Sections were subjected to tensile force at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min.
  6. Failure Analysis: Fracture surfaces were examined under a stereomicroscope and classified as adhesive, cohesive in composite, or mixed failure.

This research directly impacts the formulation, instruction, and clinical use of multi-mode dental adhesives, focusing on optimizing mechanical performance in restorative procedures.

  • Dental Materials Manufacturing: Provides data necessary for manufacturers to revise application instructions for “no wait” adhesives, emphasizing the need for prolonged application or active rubbing to maximize bond strength.
  • Biomaterials Science: Focuses on the interaction between functional monomers (like MDP) and dentin structure, particularly how solvent type (acetone vs. ethanol vs. isopropyl alcohol) and mechanical agitation affect infiltration and polymerization kinetics.
  • Restorative Dentistry: Directly informs clinical protocols for placing composite restorations, ensuring long-term mechanical stability and reducing the risk of restoration failure due to inadequate dentin bonding.
  • Quality Control and Testing: Utilizes and validates the microtensile bond strength (µTBS) test as a critical metric for evaluating the mechanical integrity of the resin-dentin interface.
View Original Abstract

Objective: This study evaluated the effects of alternative self-etch application modes on resin-dentin microtensile bond strength (µTBS) of three commercially available “no wait” concept universal adhesives. Materials and methods: In this study extracted impacted non-carious human third molars were used. The flat surfaces were prepared in mid-coronal dentin and prepared with a 600-grit SiC paper. The three universal adhesives that were used are as follows: Clearfil Universal Bond Quick (CUQ, Kuraray Noritake, Japan), G-Premio Bond (GPB, GC Corp, Japan), and a self-curing universal adhesive “Tokuyama Universal Bond” (TUB; Tokuyama Dental, Japan). The following three different application procedures were used for the dentin surfaces: the adhesives were applied and immediately subjected to air-dry; the adhesives were applied followed by a 10-second wait; or the adhesives were rubbed for 10 seconds. Then composite resin was applied to the dentin surface and light cured. After storage in 37°C distilled water for 24 h, all the bonded teeth were cut into 1mm² sections using a low-speed diamond saw (Micracut 125 Low Speed Precision Cutter, Metkon, Bursa, Turkey) under running water (n=15). The sections were subjected to a tensile force at a crosshead speed of 1mm/min in a testing apparatus (Microtensile Tester, Bisco, IL, USA) and µTBS values were measured. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test. Failure modes were analyzed under a stereomicroscope. Results: Prolonged application time significantly affected the µTBS (p<0.005). A significant increase of µTBS on active application was observed for CUQ and GPB. The TUB with an active application had a significantly lower µTBS value compared with the other adhesives. Conclusions: Prolonged application time caused significant improvement of bond strength in all adhesives. The active application is effective at increasing the dentin bond strength except for TUB.