Search

This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the repair bond strength of resin-modified glass ionomer cement using either the same material or a universal adhesive in the etch-and-rinse and self-etch modes plus resin composite. Twenty-four resin-modified glass ionomer cement blocks were stored in distilled water for 14 d and thermocycled. Sandpaper ground specimens were randomly assigned to three experimental groups according to the repair protocol: resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Riva Light Cure, SDI) and universal adhesive (Scotchbond Universal Adhesive, 3M Oral Care) in etch-and-rinse or self-etch modes and nanohybrid resin composite (Z350 XT, 3M Oral Care). After 24 h of water storage, the blocks were sectioned, and bonded sticks were subjected to the microtensile bond strength (µTBS) test. One-way ANOVA and Tukey's test were used to analyze the data. The failure mode was descriptively analyzed. The highest µTBS values were obtained when the resin-modified glass ionomer cement was repaired using the same material (p < 0.01). In addition, the mode of application of the universal adhesive system did not influence the repair bond strength of the resin-modified glass ionomer cement. Adhesive/mixed failures prevailed in all groups. Repair of resin-modified glass ionomers with the same material appears to be the preferred option to improve bond strength. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To systematically review the literature to determine whether silane combined with adhesive application improves the repair bond strength of direct methacrylate-based resin composites in comparison to the use of an adhesive alone. Materials and Methods: The literature up to December 2019 was searched through PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Lilacs databases with no publication year or language limits. From 676 potentially eligible studies, 81 were selected for full-text analysis, and 19 were included in the systematic review. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted using a random effects model to calculate pooled mean differences between adhesive- vs silane-plus-adhesive surface treatments (global meta-analysis) and considering subgroup analyses (immediate and aged repair bond strengths and type of silane - hydrolyzed or nonhydrolyzed). Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan5.3 at a significance level of 5%. Results: Global meta-analysis showed that the use of silane prior to adhesive application produced significantly higher repair bond strengths (p=0.003). A higher mean difference (effect size: 7.30, 95% CI: 2.91-17.51) between groups was found when nonhydrolyzed silanes were used. The heterogeneity was high. Studies scored between medium and high risk of bias. Conclusion: An additional silane application step could increase the repair bond strength of methacrylate-based resin composites. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To systematically review the literature to compare the bond strength of universal adhesives with etch-and-rinse and self-etch systems to primary teeth. Methods: The search was carried out in PubMed®/MEDLINE, Scopus®, LILACS, Embase®, and Web of Science™ databases with no restrictions. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. Direct comparisons among universal adhesive in etch-and-rinse (UER) and self-etch (USE) modes and etch-and-rinse (ER) and self-etch (SE) systems were performed considering different substrates (sound enamel and dentin, and carious dentin) through meta-analyses of random effects. A mixed treatment comparisons meta-analysis was also performed comparing the bond strength of all adhesive approaches on sound dentin. Results: From 3,276 potentially eligible studies, 18 were selected for full-text analysis, and eight were included in the systematic review. All studies included in the meta-analyses evaluated a mild universal adhesive (Scotchbond™ Universal). In direct comparisons, there was no difference between USE and SE to sound enamel (mean difference [MD] equals 5.22; 95 percent confidence interval [95% CI] equals -9.09 to 19.52). In carious dentin, the results favored only ER over USE (MD equals -3.88; 95% CI equals -7.40 to -0.37). In sound dentin, the bond strength values of UER were higher than ER (MD equals 5.50; 95% CI equals 4.03 to 6.96). The rank probability showed that the best treatment on sound dentin was UER. Conclusion: Pooled in vitro data suggest that a mild universal adhesive system can substitute the etch-and-rinse and self-etch systems for restoring primary teeth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]