Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Oct 17;14(10):522.
doi: 10.3390/jfb14100522.

Effect of Modified Triple-Layer Application on the Bond Strength of Different Dental Adhesive Systems to Dentin

Rim Bourgi  1   2 , Naji Kharouf  2   3 , Carlos Enrique Cuevas-Suárez  4 , Monika Lukomska-Szymańska  5 , Walter Devoto  6 , Cynthia Kassis  1 , Omar Hasbini  7 , Davide Mancino  2   3   8 , Youssef Haikel  2   3   8 , Louis Hardan  1
Affiliations

Effect of Modified Triple-Layer Application on the Bond Strength of Different Dental Adhesive Systems to Dentin

Rim Bourgi et al. J Funct Biomater. .

Abstract

The goal of this article was to assess the effect of modified triple-layer application (MTLA) in conjunction with the active bonding technique on the bond strength of four adhesive systems to dentinal substrate. The adhesives tested were Prime&Bond Universal (PBU), OptiBond Universal (OBU), OptiBond FL (OBFL), and Clearfil SE (CSE). The adhesives were applied according to the following strategies: single active application (A) and triple adhesive layer application including Active-Passive-Passive (APP); AAP; and AAA. The micro-tensile bond strength test was evaluated following 24 h or 6 months of storage. The composite-dentin interface morphology was investigated using scanning electron microscopy. The data were statistically analyzed with a significance level of α = 0.05. At 24 h of aging, all of the factors tested were not significant (p > 0.05) for CSE. For OBFL, OBU, and PBU, statistically higher values were observed for the A technique (p < 0.05). Plus, there were no significant variances between the APP, AAP, and AAA techniques (p > 0.05) for OBFL and PBU. However, for OBU, there were no significant differences between the A and AAA techniques (p > 0.05). After 6 months of aging, the A technique showed statistically higher values when compared to the other techniques (p < 0.01), except for OBFL, where the A and AAA techniques showed promising outcomes. When comparing the bond strength values of 24 h and 6 months, only for PBU, all of the techniques used resulted in bond strength stability over time (p > 0.05). Thicker adhesive layers were observed when MTLA was applied. Only the OBFL adhesive showed the formation of resin tags in all of the modalities tested. The bonding performances of the different application techniques used were material-dependent.

Keywords: active application; aging; bond strength; etch-and-rinse adhesives; self-etch adhesives; universal adhesives.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Representation of the four groups tested in this research. Single active application (A); triple application, Active–Passive–Passive (APP); triple application, Active–Active–Passive (AAP); triple application, Active–Active–Active (AAA).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Representation of the tooth preparation, bonding procedure, and resin–dentin beams tested in the current manuscript.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Scanning electron microscopy images (×2000 magnification) determine the adhesive layer and resin tag infiltration of the distinctive dental adhesive systems examined with the modified triple-layer application and the control group. Clearfil SE Bond (CSE); OptiBond FL (OBFL); OptiBond Universal (OBU); Prime&Bond Universal (PBU); Single active application (A); triple application, Active–Passive–Passive (APP); triple application, Active–Active–Passive (AAP); triple application, Active–Active–Active (AAA).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Reis A., Loguercio A., Favoreto M., Chibinski A. Some Myths in Dentin Bonding: An Evidence-Based Perspective. J. Dent. Res. 2023;102:376–382. doi: 10.1177/00220345221146714. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Saikaew P., Sattabanasuk V., Harnirattisai C., Chowdhury A.F.M.A., Carvalho R., Sano H. Role of the Smear Layer in Adhesive Dentistry and the Clinical Applications to Improve Bonding Performance. Jpn. Dent. Sci. Rev. 2022;58:59–66. doi: 10.1016/j.jdsr.2021.12.001. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bourgi R., Hardan L., Cuevas-Suárez C.E., Devoto W., Kassis C., Kharma K., Harouny R., Ashi T., Mancino D., Kharouf N., et al. Effectiveness of Different Application Modalities on the Bond Performance of Four Polymeric Adhesive Systems to Dentin. Polymers. 2023;15:3924. doi: 10.3390/polym15193924. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hardan L., Bourgi R., Cuevas-Suárez C.E., Zarow M., Kharouf N., Mancino D., Villares C.F., Skaba D., Lukomska-Szymanska M. The Bond Strength and Antibacterial Activity of the Universal Dentin Bonding System: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Microorganisms. 2021;9:1230. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms9061230. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cadenaro M., Josic U., Maravić T., Mazzitelli C., Marchesi G., Mancuso E., Breschi L., Mazzoni A. Progress in Dental Adhesive Materials. J. Dent. Res. 2023;102:254–262. doi: 10.1177/00220345221145673. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources