Effect of different smear layers on the bonding performance
and durability of four adhesive systems

doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.2223

Abstract

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: When the tooth surface is treated with a rotary or manual instrument, a smudge layer is formed on the enamel and dentin by debris generated by cutting and abrasion. The bonding interface between the adhesive and the dentin is considered as a weak part in the direct repair process. To clarify the effect of smear layer on different kinds of adhesive is significantly important for dentists to select and correctly use the adhesive in clinical treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of different diamond burs on the dentin bonding performance of four adhesive systems to dentin after 24 hours and 100 days of artificial saliva-storage.

METHODS: Adhesive systems were: (1) VSA (Optibond Versa, Kerr); (2) AIO (Optibond All in One, Kerr); (3) SBU (Single bond Universal, 3M); (4) GLU (Bond 5, Gluma,Heraeus). In present study, 80 extracted human molars were randomly divided into four groups and each group is divided into 4 subgroups. Dentin surfaces were prepared by: (1) 600-grit SiC-paper (control group); (2) super-fine diamond bur; (3) regular diamond bur; (4) coarse diamond bur. Bonding agent was applied according to each manufacturer’s instruction. After light-curing, dentin surfaces were built-up with resin composite (A2, CHARISMA, Heraeus). The micro-tensile bond strength was determined after 24 hours and 100 days of storage in artificial saliva at 37 °C. The fractured surfaces on dentin side were observed by scanning electron microscope.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: (1) Storage for 24 hours: there was no significant difference among groups under VSA and GLU. Under SBU and AIO, the bond strength in the coarse diamond bur group was significantly lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05). Using 600-grit SiC-paper or regular diamond bur, the bond strength showed no significant difference only between AIO and VSA groups. Using regular diamond bur, the bond strength showed no significant difference in the VSA group compared with the AIO, GLU and SBU groups (P > 0.05). Using coarse diamond bur, the bond strength in the VSA group had significant difference compared with the AIO, GLU and SBU groups (P < 0.05), and other groups had no significant difference (P > 0.05). (2) Storage for 100 days, there was no significant difference among groups under VSA and GLU. Under SBU, the bond strength in the coarse diamond bur group was significantly lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05). Using 600-grit SiC-paper, the bond strength showed no significant difference only between VSA and SBU groups (P > 0.05). Using regular diamond bur, the bond strength showed no significant difference in the GLU group compared with the SBU, and VSA groups (P > 0.05). Using coarse diamond bur, the bond strength had no significant difference between VSA and AIO groups (P < 0.05). (3) Using VSA, the bond strength in each group at 100 days showed significant difference compared with that at 24 hours (P < 0.05). (4)Compared with immersed for 24 hours, the ratio of bond interface and combined crack in the VSA, SBU and GLU groups after immersed for 100 days was increased, especially the VSA group. Compared with the other groups, the ratio of bond interface and combined crack in the GLU group after immersed for 24 hours and 100 days both increased by 50%. (5) These results indicate that preparation by different burs produces different smear layers, which has significant effect to self-etching adhesive system and has no significant effect to total-etching adhesive system. Storage time makes effect on different adhesives.

Key words: dentin, diamond bur, smear layer, universal system, micro-tensile bond strength, bonding performance, scanning electrical microscope, fractured surface observation

CLC Number:

Zheng Shize, Li Ke, Chen Yue, Yan Xiaoyuan, Zhan Desong, Fu Jiale. Effect of different smear layers on the bonding performance and durability of four adhesive systems[J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2020, 24(4): 517-523.

Figures/Tables 4

储存24 h时不同粒度车针对粘接强度的影响：使用两步法自酸蚀粘接剂VSA的情况下，砂纸、中细粒度车针、标准粒度车针、粗粒度车针组间粘接强度两两比较差异均无显著性意义(P > 0.05)。使用一步法自酸蚀粘接剂AIO的情况下，粗粒度车针组粘接强度低于砂纸组、中细粒度车针组、标准粒度车针组(P < 0.05)，砂纸组、中细粒度车针组、标准粒度车针组间粘接强度比较差异无显著性意义(P > 0.05)。使用通用型粘接剂SBU的情况下，粗粒度车针组粘接强度低于砂纸组、中细粒度车针组、标准粒度车针组(P < 0.05)，砂纸组、中细粒度车针组、标准粒度车针组间粘接强度比较差异无显著性意义(P > 0.05)。使用全酸蚀粘接剂GLU的情况下，4组间粘接强度两两比较差异均无显著性意义(P > 0.05)。储存24 h时不同粘接系统对粘接强度的影响：采用砂纸的情况下，AIO组与GLU组、AIO组与SBU组、GLU组与SBU组、GLU组与VSA组、SBU组与VSA组粘接强度比较差异有显著性意义(P < 0.05)。AIO组与VSA组粘接强度比较差异无显著性意义(P > 0.05)。采用中细粒度车针的情况下，AIO组与GLU组、AIO组与SBU组、GLU组与SBU组、GLU组与VSA组、SBU组与VSA组粘接强度比较差异有显著性意义(P < 0.05)，AIO组与VSA组粘接强度比较差异无显著性意义(P > 0.05)。采用标准粒度车针的情况下，AIO组与GLU组、AIO组与SBU组、GLU组与VSA组、SBU组与VSA组粘接强度比较差异有显著性意义(P < 0.05)，AIO组粘接强度与VSA组、GLU组与SBU组比较差异无显著性意义(P > 0.05)。采用粗粒度车针的情况下，VSA组粘接强度与AIO组、GLU组、SBU组比较差异有显著性意义(P < 0.05)，AIO组与GLU组、AIO组与SBU组、GLU组与SBU组粘接强度比较差异无显著性意义(P > 0.05)。储存100 d时不同粒度车针对粘接强度的影响：使用两步法自酸蚀粘接剂VSA的情况下，砂纸组、中细粒度车针、标准粒度车针、粗粒度车针组间粘接强度两两比较差异均无显著性意义(P > 0.05)。使用一步法自酸蚀粘接剂AIO的情况下，砂纸组、中细粒度车针组粘接强度高于粗粒度车针组(P < 0.05)，砂纸组、中细粒度车针组、标准粒度车针组间粘接强度比较差异无显著性意义(P > 0.05)，标准粒度车针组与粗粒度车针组粘接强度比较差异无显著性意义(P > 0.05)。使用通用型粘接剂SBU的情况下，砂纸组、中细粒度车针组粘接强度显著高于标准粒度车针组和粗粒度车针组(P < 0.05)，砂纸组与中细粒度车针组、标准粒度车针组与粗粒度车针组间粘接强度比较差异无显著性意义(P > 0.05)。使用全酸蚀粘接剂GLU的情况下，砂纸组、中细粒度车针组、标准粒度车针组、粗粒度车针组间粘接强度两两比较差异均无显著性意义(P > 0.05)。储存100 d时不同粘接系统对粘接强度的影响：使用砂纸的情况下，AIO组粘接强度与GLU组、VSA组、SBU组比较差异有显著性意义(P < 0.05)，GLU组粘接强度与SBU组、VSA组比较差异有显著性意义(P < 0.05)，VSA组与SBU组粘接强度比较差异无显著性意义(P > 0.05)。使用中细粒度车针的情况下，AIO组粘接强度与GLU组、VSA组、SBU组比较差异有显著性意义(P < 0.05)，GLU组粘接强度与SBU组、VSA组比较差异有显著性意义(P < 0.05)，VSA组与SBU组粘接强度比较差异无显著性意义(P > 0.05)。使用标准粒度车针处理情况下，AIO组粘接强度与GLU组、VSA组、SBU组比较差异有显著性意义(P < 0.05)，SBU组粘接强度与VSA组比较差异无显著性意义(P > 0.05)，GLU组粘接强度与SBU组、VSA组比较差异无显著性意义(P > 0.05)。使用粗粒度车针的情况下，AIO组与GLU组、AIO组与SBU组、GLU组与SBU组、GLU组与VSA、SBU组与VSA组粘接强度比较差异有显著性意义(P < 0.05)，VSA组粘接强度与AIO组比较差异无显著性意义(P > 0.05)。储存时间对粘接强度的影响：使用两步法自酸蚀粘接剂VSA的情况下，砂纸组、中细粒度车针组、标准粒度车针、粗粒度车针组储存100 d后的粘接强度均较24 h降低(P < 0.05)；使用一步法自酸蚀粘接剂AIO的情况下，砂纸组、中细粒度车针组、标准粒度车针组、粗粒度车针组100 d后的粘接强度与24 h比较无明显变化(P > 0.05)。使用通用型粘接剂SBU的情况下，砂纸组、中细粒度车针组、标准粒度车针组、粗粒度车针组储存100 d后的粘接强度与24 h比较无明显变化(P > 0.05)。使用全酸蚀粘接剂GLU的情况下，砂纸组、中细粒度车针组、标准粒度车针组、粗粒度车针组储存100 d后的粘接强度与24 h比较无明显变化(P > 0.05)。总体分析结果：双因素方差分析结果显示，表面处理与粘接剂对粘接强度有显著影响(P < 0.05)，表面处理与存储时间对粘接强度有显著影响(P < 0.05)，时间与粘接剂对粘接强度无显著影响(P > 0.05)。因此，此次实验假设被否认。 2.2 断裂模式分析与储存24 h相比，VSA组、SBU组、GLU组储存100 d后的粘接界面断裂和混合断裂比例略有增加，其中VSA组的变化最大；与其他组相比，GLU组储存100 d与24 h的粘接界面断裂与混合断裂模式的比例均超过50%，见图2。 "

References

[1] FU J, KAKUDA S, PAN F, et al.Bonding performance of a newly developed step-less all-in-one system on dentin. Dent Mater J.2013;32(2):203-211.
[2] ARGOLO S, MATHIAS P, AGUIAR T, et al.Effect of agitation and storage temperature on water sorption and solubility of adhesive systems.Dent Mater J.2015;34(1):1-6.
[3] 梁乙然,郭斌,罗强,等.人工唾液条件下3种自酸蚀粘接剂与牙本质粘接耐久性研究[J].中国实用口腔科杂志, 2018,11(5): 286-290.
[4] 伊哲,朱琳琳,李柯檬.四种自酸蚀粘接剂的粘接强度耐久性实验研究[J].中国实用口腔科杂志,2015,8(6):358-362.
[5] TAKAMIZAWA T, BARKMEIER WW, SAI K, et al.Influence of different smear layers on bond durability of self-etch adhesives. Dent Mater.2018;34(2):246-259.
[6] SAIKAEW P, CHOWDHURY AF, FUKUYAMA M, et al.The effect of dentine surface preparation and reduced application time of adhesive on bonding strength.J Dent.2016;47:63-70.
[7] AYAD MF.Effects of rotary instrumentation and different etchants on removal of smear layer on human dentin. J Prosthet Dent.2001;85(1):67-72.
[8] INOUE H, INOUE S, UNO S, et al.Microtensile bond strength of two single-step adhesive systems to bur-prepared dentin. J Adhes Dent.2001;3(2):129-136.
[9] TAY FR, SANO H, CARVALHO R, et al.An ultrastructural study of the influence of acidity of self-etching primers and smear layer thickness on bonding to intact dentin. J Adhes Dent. 2000;2(2):83-98.
[10] TAY FR, CARVALHO R, SANO H, et al.Effect of smear layers on the bonding of a self-etching primer to dentin.J Adhes Dent. 2000;2(2):99-116.
[11] DIAS WR, PEREIRA PN, SWIFT EJ JR. Effect of bur type on microtensile bond strengths of self-etching systems to human dentin.J Adhes Dent.2004;6(3):195-203.
[12] ERMIS RB, DE MUNCK J, CARDOSO MV, et al.Bond strength of self-etch adhesives to dentin prepared with three different diamond burs. Dent Mater.2008;24(7):978-985.
[13] 邢春霞,聂蓉蓉,孟翔峰,等.不同牙体预备车针所致玷污层对自粘接型树脂水门汀粘接强度的影响[J].口腔医学, 2019,39(5): 423-426.
[14] WATANABE I, NAKABAYASHI N, PASHLEY DH. Bonding to ground dentin by a phenyl-P self-etching primer.J Dent Res. 1994;73(6):1212-1220.
[15] ZABEU GS, MAENOSSONO RM, SCARCELLA CR, et al. Effect of diode laser irradiation on the bond strength of polymerized non-simplified adhesive systems after 12 months of water storage.J Appl Oral Sci.2018;27:e20180126.
[16] KANZOW P, BAXTER S, RIZK M, et al.Effectiveness of a universal adhesive for repair bonding to composite and amalgam.J Oral Sci.2019;61(2):343-350.
[17] VAN LANDUYT KL, SNAUWAERT J, PEUMANS M, et al.The role of HEMA in one-step self-etch adhesives.Dent Mater. 2008;24(10):1412-1419.
[18] SIA CF, LEVEY C.HEMA-free or HEMA-containing adhesive systems for non-carious cervical lesions.Evid Based Dent. 2018;19(4):114-115.
[19] MINE A, DE MUNCK J, CARDOSO MV, et al.Dentin-smear remains at self-etch adhesive interface. Dent Mater. 2014. 30(10):1147-1153.
[20] YOSHIHARA K, NAGAOKA N, OKIHARA T, et al.Functional monomer impurity affects adhesive performance.Dent Mater. 2015;31(12):1493-1501.
[21] 徐婧秋.新型底涂冲洗剂提高自酸蚀粘接剂的牙本质粘接持久性的研究[J].杭州:浙江大学,2016.
[22] WANG R, SHI Y, LI T, et al.Adhesive interfacial characteristics and the related bonding performance of four self-etching adhesives with different functional monomers applied to dentin. J Dent.2017;62:72-80.
[23] VAN LANDUYT KL, YOSHIDA Y, HIRATA I, et al.Influence of the chemical structure of functional monomers on their adhesive performance.J Dent Res.2008;87(8):757-761.
[24] FEITOSA VP, OGLIARI FA, VAN MEERBEEK B, et al.Can the hydrophilicity of functional monomers affect chemical interaction.J Dent Res.2014;93(2):201-216.
[25] ZHANG Z, WANG X, ZHANG L, et al.The contribution of chemical bonding to the short- and long-term enamel bond strengths.Dent Mater.2013;29(7):e103-112.
[26] YOSHIHARA K, YOSHIDA Y, NAGAOKA N, et al. Nano-controlled molecular interaction at adhesive interfaces for hard tissue reconstruction.Acta Biomater. 2010;6(9): 3573-3582.
[27] 汪嘉.不同粘结剂不同涂布次数对牙本质粘接强度的影响[D].长沙:中南大学,2009.
[28] LIU KL, ZHANG XF, WEI X.Influence of different acid etching modes on bond strengths to non-carious sclerotic dentin. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue.2016;25(1):38-41.
[29] 傅柏平.牙本质粘接持久性的影响因素及解决对策[J].口腔材料器械杂志,2013,22(1):5-6.
[30] SHONO Y, TERASHITA M, SHIMADA J, et al.Durability of resin-dentin bonds.J Adhes Dent.1999;1(3):211-218.
[31] DAVIDSON CL, DE GEE AJ, FEILZER A.The competition between the composite-dentin bond strength and the polymerization contraction stress.J Dent Res. 1984;63(12): 1396-1399.