THE JOURNAL OF - Dentsply

Effectiveness of All-in-one Adhesive Systems Tested by
Thermocycling Following Short and Long-term Water
Storage
Uwe Blunck a /Paul Zaslansky b
Purpose: To evaluate and compare the marginal integrity of in vitro Class V restorations made with all-in-one adhesive
systems by thermocycling after different periods of water storage, to provide an analysis of static and quasi-dynamic
deterioration in water.
Materials and Methods: Standardized Class V cavities (17 groups, 8 specimens each) were prepared in extracted
human caries-free anterior teeth. The cavities were filled using 14 all-in-one adhesive systems/composite resin combinations
in addition to the multi-bottle adhesive systems Syntac and OptiBond FL (etch-and-rinse technique) and
Clearfil SE Bond (self-etching) as controls. The samples were thermocycled after water storage for 21 days, after 1
year and again after 3 years (2000 cycles between 5 and 55°C) and replicas were made before and after each thermocycling
treatment (TC) for quantitative marginal analysis in the SEM.
Results: In dentin, marginal adaptation showed no significant differences between all groups after the first TC. After
one year of water storage and a second TC, the results for Prompt L-Pop (1999), Adper Prompt L-Pop/Tetric Ceram,
and One-up Bond F Plus showed a statistically significant decrease of margin quality 1 (MQ1) score compared to the
reference groups. When the all-in-one adhesives G-Bond, AQ-Bond, Hybrid Bond, and One-up Bond F Plus were used,
the enamel margins of restorations showed lower percentages of “continuous margins” (p < 0.05) after 1 year of
water storage and TC. Of the materials tested after 3 years of water storage and TC, only AQ Bond had a significantly
lower MQ1 score.
Conclusion: While all materials exhibited deterioration in the MQ1 quality score, the rate of deterioration varied, and
the results show that different materials have different deterioration rates after initial vs long-term water storage. The
deterioration along margins in dentin was not as extensive as predicted from other studies; however, the results from
the enamel margins show that one-bottle all-in-one adhesives seem to be significantly affected by water storage. The
results of this study suggest that the all-in-one adhesive group members perform very differently from each other:
thus, data need to be explored further at the level of each different adhesive product
Keywords: marginal quality evaluation, in vitro Class V restorations, adhesive system effectiveness.
J Adhes Dent 2007; 9: 231-240. Submitted for publication: 15.12.06; accepted for publication: 4.1.07.
a Associate Professor, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Dental School, Campus
Virchow Klinikum, Berlin, Germany.
b Staff Scientist, Max Planck Institute of Colloids and Interfaces, Department of
Biomaterials, Potsdam, Germany
Paper presented at Satellite Symposium on Dental Adhesives, Dublin,
September 13th, 2006.
Reprint requests: Dr. Uwe Blunck, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Dental
School, Campus Virchow Clinic, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353 Berlin, Germany.
Tel: +49-30-450-562-673, Fax: +49-30-450-562-961.
Adhesive systems are routinely used to improve the marginal
seal of composite resin restorations at the interfaces
with enamel and dentin. Bonding between enamel or
dentin and the restorative composite must be sufficiently effective
to resist the varying stresses to which a “typical”
restoration is subjected. Such stresses include the polymerization
shrinkage during composite placement as well as
mechanical, thermal, and hydration stresses incurred in the
oral environment due to normal use and wear. 25
Available adhesive systems may be classified as dentinconditioning
adhesive systems with selective acid etching
on enamel, etch-and-rinse systems which necessitate phosphoric
acid etching and rinsing of enamel/dentin prior to ap-
Vol 9, Supplement 2, 2007 231