Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 6, 2025
Development of Amelogenin-chitosan Hydrogel for In Vitro Enamel Regrowth with a Dense Interface
Published on: July 10, 2014
Effect of Extra Hydrophobic Resin Layer on Bonding of Universal Adhesive Systems to Enamel
Jpb Soares1, J Perdigão2, B Chrispim3
1José Paulo Barbosa Soares, DDS, MS, Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Campus Universitário Trindade, Santa Catarina, Brazil.
Objective:
The objective of this study was to compare the effect of solvent in universal adhesives (UA) and the application of an extra layer of hydrophobic bonding resin on enamel shear bond strengths (SBS).
Methods And Materials:
Crowns of 224 bovine mandibular incisors were embedded in acrylic resin, wet-polished up to 600-grit silicon carbide paper and assigned to 3 UAs with different solvents (n=32): ethanol-based UA (ADU, AdheSE Universal, Ivoclar Vivadent); isopropanol-based UA (PBU, Prime&Bond Universal, Dentsply Sirona); and acetone-based UA (OPT, OptiBond Universal, Kerr Co). The same UAs were also applied with an extra layer of a hydrophobic bonding resin (HLB, Heliobond, Ivoclar Vivadent): ADU + HLB; PBU + HLB; and OPT + HLB. HLB alone was used as control. Enamel was etched with 37.5% H3PO4 (Kerr Gel Etchant, Kerr Co) for 15 seconds, rinsed with water, and air dried. UAs were applied according to the respective manufacturer's instructions. After adhesive application, composite cylinders (Filtek Z250, 3M Oral Care) were built up and light-cured (40 seconds/increment, 40 J/cm2) keeping the light tip in contact with the mold. Specimens were stored in water for 24 hours (24H) or for 6 months (6M). A knife-edged metallic rod (Ø=2.8-mm semicircular notch) loaded the composite cylinders until fracture. Mode of failure was analyzed with optical microscopy (40×). Statistics included twoway analysis of variance (ANOVA; adhesive strategy and water storage) and Tukey honestly significant difference (HSD) post hoc test (α=95%).
Results:
Mean enamel SBS ranged from 3.6 (±2.2) MPa (HLB/6M) to 24.7 (±7.1) MPa (ADU + HLB/6M). ANOVA revealed significant differences for adhesive strategy (p≤0.001) but no significant differences for water storage (p>0.05). All UAs resulted in similar mean enamel SBS with or without an extra layer of HLB at 24H. After 6M, only ADU resulted in higher enamel SBS when an extra layer of HLB was applied. All UAs resulted in higher mean enamel SBS than HLB (control). Most failures were adhesive exception for PBU/HLB/6M, which had mostly mixed failures.
Conclusions:
UAs resulted in statistically higher enamel SBS than the nonsolvated hydrophobic bonding resin (control), regardless of the solvent in their composition. Application of an extra layer of hydrophobic bonding resin over UAs did not improve mean enamel SBS for isopropanol- and acetone-based UAs but did improve mean enamel SBS for the ethanol-based UA after 6M. Resin composite bonding to enamel using a hydrophobic bonding resin alone is not recommended.
