scholarly journals Etch-and-Rinse and Self-Etch Adhesives Behavior on Dentin

10.5772/64856 ◽  
2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
João Cardoso Ferreira ◽  
Patrícia Teixeira Pires ◽  
Paulo Ribeiro de Melo ◽  
Mário Jorge Silva
Keyword(s):  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Self Etch

Two Adhesive Systems-effect on Adhesion to Tooth Structure

2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (7) ◽  
pp. 2608-2613
Author(s):  
Larisa Simona Deac ◽  
Kamel Earar ◽  
Adela Loredana Colceriu Burtea ◽  
Alexandra Stefania Berghe ◽  
Aurora Antoniac ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Hybrid Layer ◽  
Tooth Structure ◽  
Selective Etch ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Wisdom Teeth ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Group 1

This study evaluates and compares by dye penetration method and SEM photomicrographs the sealing obtained using two different classes of adhesive systems (etch-and-rinse and self-etch with selective etching) with SDR (Dentsply) bulk fill composite. 84 class V cavities were prepared on oral and vestibular face of 42 intact, freshly extracted wisdom teeth. The cavities were randomly divided in two groups and restored: Group 1 with prime &bond one select (Dentsply) and SDR (Dentsply) and Group 2 with prime&bond one Etch&Rinse (Dentsply) and SDR (Dentsply). Prime&bond one Select (Dentsply) is a single component adhesive and can be used in self etch mode, in selective enamel etch mode, or in etch-and-rinse mode. We chosen for this study the selective etch of the enamel mode. Prime&bond one Etch Rinse (Dentsply) is a universal etch-and-rinse one-bottle dental adhesive, designed to be used in two steps. The bulk fill composites are commonly used in modern dentistry due to their properties of low polymerization shrinkage and curing in layer of 4 mm depth, offering the practitioner a fast clinical procedure with good results. The results showed a good sealing at enamel and dentin margins with no statistically significant difference between adhesives, even though the mean of enamel infiltration was smaller for Group1. Furthermore the results show that there were differences between the two groups, for the infiltrations at the enamel, the values of microleakage being arithmetically higher for Group 1, but with no statistically difference between the two groups.SEM images showed for both groups a good adhesion surface with the tooth, but the hybrid layer of the total-etch adhesives is different from the hybrid layer formed by self etch adhesives, in terms of thickness, uniformity. In conclusion both adhesive systems have equivalent sealing qualities and can be successfully used with SDR.

Microleakage After Thermocycling of 4 Etch and Rinse and 3 Self-etch Adhesives With and Without a Flowable Composite Lining

10.2341/05-55 ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 450-455 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. M. Guéders ◽  
J. F. Charpentier ◽  
A. I. Albert ◽  
S. O. Geerts
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Relevance ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Flowable Composite ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Composite Lining ◽  
Self Etch

Clinical Relevance This study indicates that etch and rinse adhesive systems are less prone to microleakage than self-etch systems.

scholarly journals Demineralized enamel reduces margin integrity of self-etch, but not of etch-and-rinse bonded composite restorations

Odontology ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 107 (3) ◽  
pp. 308-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philipp Körner ◽  
Aljmedina Sulejmani ◽  
Daniel B. Wiedemeier ◽  
Thomas Attin ◽  
Tobias T. Tauböck
Keyword(s):  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Demineralized Enamel ◽  
Bonded Composite ◽  
Self Etch

A 36-month evaluation of self-etch and etch-and-rinse adhesives in noncarious cervical lesions

2007 ◽  
Vol 138 (4) ◽  
pp. 507-514 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Dourado Loguercio ◽  
Dax Dalton Bittencourt ◽  
Luiz Narciso Baratieri ◽  
Alessandra Reis
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Self Etch

scholarly journals Effect of Tannic Acid on Bond Strength of Etch and Rinse and Self-etch Adhesive Systems in Dentin of Primary Teeth

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-38
Author(s):  
Mojtaba Abdollahi ◽  
Masoumeh Ebrahimi ◽  
Alireza Sarraf Shirazi ◽  
Faraneh Abdolhoseinpour
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Tannic Acid ◽  
Primary Teeth ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
T Test ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Primary Molar ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Self Etch

ABSTRACT Introduction One of the possible mechanisms for the gradual destruction of bond strength in dentin-resin interface, could be due to the demineralized unstable collagen matrix. Use of protease inhibitors, such as tannic acid (TA) could prevent destruction of collagen fibers. The aim of this study was to compare the TA effect on bond strength of etch and rinse and self-etch adhesive systems in the dentin of primary teeth. Materials and methods This in vitro study was done on 40 extracted primary molar teeth. The teeth were sectioned in the mesiodistal direction, and enamel of buccal and lingual surfaces was removed. Samples were randomly divided into four groups: Single bond (SB) + TA, SB, Clearfil SE Bond (CSB) + TA, and CSB. Then, Z250 and Clearfil AP-X composites were cured on the surfaces of SB and CSB groups respectively. After that, all samples were divided into aging and non-aging groups. For 3 months, samples were placed under 1,000 thermal cycles in aging group. Subsequently, the shear bond strengths of all groups were measured by the International testing machine, and failure mode was evaluated by an optical stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed with paired t-test and independent t-test. Results Tannic acid induced a significant reduction in the immediate bond strength of adhesive SB. Meanwhile, TA had no significant effect on shear bond strength of the CSB system. Conclusion Based on our findings, use of TA is not recommended with SB and CSB adhesives on primary teeth. Clinical significance Tannic acid may not be considered in resin restorations of primary teeth. How to cite this article Ebrahimi M, Sarraf Shirazi A, Abdolhoseinpour F, Abdollahi M. Effect of Tannic Acid on Bond Strength of Etch and Rinse and Self-etch Adhesive Systems in Dentin of Primary Teeth. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017;18(1):34-38.

scholarly journals Comparación In vitro de la resistencia adhesiva de los sistemas adhesivos Etch and Rinse (grabado y enjuague) y self etch (Autograbado)

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 23
Author(s):  
Edwin Miranda
Keyword(s):  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
El Sistema ◽  
Self Etch

El propósito del estudio fue comparar in vitro la resistencia adhesiva de los sistemas Etch and Rinse (grabado y enjuague), 4ta y 5ta generación; y los sistemas Self Etch (autograbado), 6ta y 7ma generación. Se realizó un estudiodescriptivo, comparativo. Se utilizaron 20 terceros molares extraídos por motivos ortodóncico y profilácticos. Los cuales fueron cortados por la mitad obteniendo 40 muestras, en forma aleatoria los dientes fueron divididos en cuatro grupos, 10 con 4ta generación, 10 con 5ta generación, 10 con 6ta generación y 10 con 7ma generación. Se realizó una prueba de tracción vertical medido en kilogramos fuerza, para luego ser transformados a megapascales (Mpa). Las resinas de 4ta generación obtuvieron una resistencia adhesiva de 29,9 Mpa, las de 5ta una resistencia de 16,9 Mpa, la de 6ta una resistencia de 27,5 Mpa y las de 7ma generación una resistencia de 11,0 Mpa. Los resultados se sometieron a pruebas de normalidad mediante la prueba de Shapiro Wilk, los mismos que fueron analizados mediante el ANOVA de un factor, encontrándose diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre los cuatro grupos de estudio conun valor p de 0,001. Se concluye que el sistema adhesivo de 4ta generación clasificado como Etch and Rinse presento mejor resistencia adhesiva, seguido del sistema adhesivo de 6ta generación clasificado como Self Etch.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document