Microtensile bond strength of a filled vs unfilled adhesive to dentin ...

Journal of Dentistry (2006) 34, 283–291 

Microtensile bond strength of a filled vs unfilled 

adhesive to dentin using self-etch and 

total-etch technique 

Esra Can Say a, *, Masatoshi Nakajima b , Pisol Senawongse c ,Mübin Soyman a , 

Füsun Özer d , Miwako Ogata b , Junji Tagami b,e 

a 

Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Yeditepe University, Istanbul, Turkey 

b 

Department of Restorative Sciences, Cariology and Operative Dentistry, Graduate School, Tokyo Medical 

and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan 

c 

Department of Operative Dentistry, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand 

d 

Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey 

e 

Center of Excellence Program for Frontier Research on Molecular Destruction and Reconstruction of Tooth 

and Bone, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan 

Received 9 April 2005; received in revised form 8 July 2005; accepted 14 July 2005 

KEYWORDS 

Filled adhesive; 

Unfilled adhesive; 

Total-etch; 

Self-etch 

* Corresponding author. Tel.: C90 2163636044; fax: C90 

2163636211. 

E-mail address: esracansay@yahoo.com (E. Can Say). 

0300-5712/$ - see front matter Q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2005.07.003 

www.intl.elsevierhealth.com/journals/jden 

Summary Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of a filled 

adhesive (One-Step Plus; Bisco) versus an unfilled adhesive (One-Step; Bisco) on the 

microtensile bond strength (mTBS) to dentin using total-etch (Uni-etch; Bisco) and 

self-etch (Tyrian SPE; Bisco) techniques. 

Methods: Twenty extracted human third molars were ground flat to expose occlusal 

dentin. After the dentin surfaces were polished with 600-grit SiC paper, the teeth 

were randomly assigned to four groups according to the bonding agent and technique 

being used. Dentin surfaces were bonded with One-Step PlusCtotal-etch; One-Step 

PlusCself-etch; One-StepCtotal-etch and One-StepCself-etch. Composite buildups 

were performed with Clearfil AP-X (Kuraray Medical). Following storage in distilled 

water at 37 8C for 24 h, the bonded specimens were serially sectioned into 0.7 mmthick 

slabs and then trimmed to hour-glass shapes with a 1 mm 2 cross-sectional area 

(nZ20). Microtensile bond strengths were determined using the EZ-test (Shimadzu) 

at a cross-head speed of 1 mm/min. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and 

Tukey’s post hoc test. 

Results: There were no significant differences in the mTBS between One-Step Plus 

and One-Step adhesives when they were used with the total-etch and self-etch 

techniques (pO0.05). However with the total-etch technique both adhesives yielded 

significantly higher bond strength values than the self-etch technique (p!0.001).

284 

Introduction 

Resin composites with adhesive materials have 

been available on the dental market for about 

four decades and are widely used for both anterior 

and posterior restorations due to the esthetic 

demands of patients, however they still have 

some undesirable properties. One is the polymerization 

shrinkage which produces contraction stresses 

generally concentrate at the bonding 

interface. 1 If these stresses exceed the bond 

strength to dentin, an interfacial gap will be 

formed, leading to bacterial infiltration, sensitivity, 

secondary caries and possible pulpal damage. 2 

Thicker adhesive layers or liners may act as an 

elastic intermediate layer (elastic cavity wall) 

between the cavity walls and the adjacent composite. 

That is, they could resist the polymerization 

shrinkage stress of the resin composites 1 and absorb 

the shock produced by occlusal loads and thermal 

cycling. 3 Using unfilled adhesives, thicker layers are 

not recommended because these materials have 

lower mechanical properties and usually provide no 

radioopacity which could mislead clinicians to 

interprete the adhesive radiotransparency as gap 

formation or recurrent caries at the margin of the 

restoration. 4 Based on this idea, filled adhesives 

have been introduced, 5–7 which have included 

various types of fillers; such as conventional glass, 

ion leachable glass, silica and nanometer-sized 

aerosil silica fillers. 8–10 They have been reported 

to improve marginal and internal seal of composite 

restorations 6,11–13 and have sufficient radioopacity 

to be discernible on dental X-ray films. 7 

Current adhesive systems employ two simplified 

application procedures to achieve the goal of 

micromechanical retention between resin and 

dentin. The first method attempts to remove the 

smear layer completely via acid etching and rinsing, 

followed by the application of an adhesive agent on 

a wet dentin surface; the total-etch technique. 14 

The second category is the self-etch technique, 

which simultaneously demineralizes dentin and 

infiltrates it with adhesive monomers. 15 The strong 

versions of self-etch adhesives can completely 

dissolve or disperse smear layers, forming thick 

hybrid layers in intact dentin that approach those 

Conclusion: The filled adhesive One-Step Plus did not show any beneficial effect than 

the unfilled adhesive One-Step on the mTBS to dentin with total-etch and self-etch 

techniques. Irrespective from the adhesive type, self-etch technique revealed lower 

bond strengths than the total-etch technique. 

Q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 

achieved with conventional total-etch technique. 

Conversely, intermediate strong and mild versions 

incorporate smear layers as part of the bonded 

interface, forming only thin hybrid layers. 16 Both 

total and self-etch approaches rely on the impregnation 

and polymerization of the monomers into 

the exposed collagen of the demineralized dentin 

surfaces, creating a hybrid layer and the stabilization 

of the hybrid layer was established by the 

adhesive. 17 Recently, in comparison to the totaletch 

adhesives two-step self-etch adhesives are 

becoming increasingly popular, because of the 

reduced post-operative 18 and technique sensitivity. 

16 In addition to these, they are less likely 

to result in a discrepancy between the depth of 

demineralization and the depth of resin infiltration 

19 since both processes occur simultaneously. 15 

Using total-etch systems, fillers incorporated in 

adhesive resins may increase the adhesive viscosity, 

resulting in a reduction in adhesive penetration 

into the demineralized dentin and bonding to 

dentin. 20,21 There is however, less information on 

the effect of the filled adhesives on the bonding of 

two-step self-etch systems to dentin. 

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the 

effect of a filled adhesive (One-Step Plus; Bisco) 

versus an unfilled adhesive (One-Step; Bisco) on the 

microtensile bond strength (mTBS) to dentin using 

total-etch (Uni-etch; Bisco) and self-etch (Tyrian 

SPE; Bisco) techniques. 

Material and methods 

E. Can Say et al. 

The materials and their compositions used in this 

study are listed in Table 1. Twenty non-carious 

extracted human third molars, stored in isotonic 

saline with thymol crystals at 4 8C, were ground 

flat using 180-grit silicon carbide (SiC) abrasive 

paper under running water to expose occlusal 

dentin. After the superficial dentin surfaces were 

polished with 600-grit SiC to standardize the 

smear layer, the teeth were randomly assigned 

to four groups according to the type of adhesive 

(One-Step Plus; One-Step) and technique (totaletch; 

self-etch) being used. Bonding procedures 

were performed according to the manufacturer’s

Microtensile bond strength of adhesive to dentin using self-etch and total-etch technique 285 

Table 1 Materials used in the study. 

Materials Composition Manufacturer 

One-Step Plus Bis-GMA, BPDM, HEMA, CQ, p-dimethylaminobenzoic acid 

(co-initiator), acetone, 8.5% glass fillers 

Bisco Inc, USA 

One-Step Bis-GMA, BPDM, HEMA, acetone Bisco Inc, USA 

Tyrian SPE Primer A: thymol blue, ethanol, water 

Primer B: AMPS, BisMEP, TPO, ethanol 

Bisco Inc, USA 

Uni-etch 32% Phosphoric acid, BAC Bisco Inc, USA 

Clearfil AP-X Bis-GMA, TEGDMA, filler (Barium, SiO2) Kuraray Co, Japan 

BPDM, Biphenyl-dimethacrylate; HEMA, 2-hydroxyethyl-methacrylate; Bis-GMA, Bisphenyl-glysidyl-methacrylate; AMPS, 2- 

Acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid; BisMEP, Bis(2-(methacryloyloxy)ethyl)phosphate; TEGDMA, Triethylene glycol-dimethacrylate 

TPO:2,4,6 (trimethylbenzoyldiphenylphosphine) oxide; BAC, Benzalkonium chloride. 

instructions and summarized in Table 2. Then a 

resin composite (Clearfil AP-X; Kuraray Medical 

Co, Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) was built up incrementally. 

Each of the three resin composite increments 

was light cured for 20 s using a light-curing 

unit (XL 3000, 3MESPE, St Paul MN, USA) with the 

intensity at 600 mW/cm 2 . Following storage in 

distilled water at 37 8C for 24 h, the bonded 

specimens were serially sectioned into 0.7 mmthick 

slabs using a low-speed diamond saw 

(Isomet; Buehler Ltd, Lake Bluff, IL 60044) and 

then trimmed with a superfine diamond bur to 

form hour-glass shapes with approximately 1 mm 2 

cross-sectional areas (nZ20) using a digital 

micrometer. 

The specimens were attached to a table-top 

material tester (EZ-test, Shimadzu Co, Kyoto, 

Japan) with a cyanoacrylate glue (Zapit, DVA, 

Anaheim, CA, USA) and subjected to microtensile 

testing at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min until they 

fractured. All of the bonded specimens were 

capable of being tested. In order to observe the 

failure modes, the debonded specimens were fixed 

for at least 8 h in 10% neutral buffered formalin, 

placed on stubs followed by room desiccation, gold 

sputter-coated and observed with a scanning 

electron microscopy (JXA-5400, JEOL, Tokyo, 

Japan). Failure modes were classified into one of 

four categories: adhesive if debonding occured 

between resin and dentin, mixed if it exhibited 

partially adhesive, partially cohesive failure in 

bonding resin or in hybrid layer, or cohesive in 

resin or cohesive in dentin. 

Two-way ANOVA was performed to evaluate the 

effect of two experimental factors: adhesive type 

and application technique, and the interaction of 

these two factors on mTBS. Multiple comparisons 

were performed by Tukey’s post hoc test at a 

significance level of 0.05 using a computer software 

(SPSS 11, SPSS Inc Chicago IL). Failure modes of the 

specimens were analyzed using chi-square test. 

Scanning electron microscopy 

Four non-carious third molars (one per group) 

were used for SEM examination of the resin-dentin 

interfaces after argon ion etching. The teeth were 

prepared in the same manner as the bonding 

procedure and then sectioned longitudinally to the 

bonding surface under running water using a lowspeed 

diamond saw (Isomet, Buehler Ltd, Lake 

Bluff IL, USA) and stored for 24 h in neutral 

formalin. The specimens were then embedded in 

epoxy resin (Epon 815, NISSIN EM Co Ltd, Tokyo, 

Table 2 Bonding procedures. 

Groups Application procedures 

One-Step Plus total-etch Apply etchant for 15 s, rinse etchant, slightly dry, leaving moist, apply adhesive 

in two coats, air dry adhesive, light cure adhesive for 10 s 

One-Step Plus self-etch Air dry dentin for 5 s, apply Tyrian SPE in two coats, air dry primer, apply adhesive 


One-Step total-etch Apply etchant for 15 s, rinse etchant, slightly dry, leaving moist, apply adhesive 


One-Step self-etch Air dry dentin for 5 s, apply Tyrian SPE in two coats, air dry primer, apply adhesive 

in two coats, air dry adhesive, light cure adhesive for 10 s

286 

Table 3 Mean microtensile bond strength to dentin using One-Step Plus and One-Step adhesives with total and 

self-etch technique. 

Type of adhesive Technique MeanGsd 

Filled (One-Step Plus) Total-etch 38.8G12.2 a (nZ20) 

Filled (One-Step Plus) Self-etch 22.4G4 b (nZ20) 

Unfilled (One-Step) Total-etch 33.9G8.5 a (nZ20) 

Unfilled (One-Step) Self-etch 26.4G7.5 b (nZ20) 

Different superscript letters indicate significant differences by two-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey’s test (p!0.05). 

Japan) and polished using wet silicon carbide 

abrasive papers and diamond pastes of decreasing 

abrasiveness to 0,25 mm (DP-Paste, P, Streuers 

A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark). They were then 

subjected to argon ion etching (EIS-1E, Elionix 

Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) for 5 min with a constant 

voltage of 1 kV and ion current density of 

0.2 mA/cm 2 , with the ion beam directed 908 to 

the specimen surface, 22 gold-sputter coated and 

observed using a scanning electron microscope 

(JSM 5400; JEOL Ltd, Tokyo, Japan). 

Four additional non-carious third molars (one 

per group) were used for SEM examination of the 

resin-dentin interfaces to serial acid-base treatment 

resistance. The specimens were prepared as 

in the above mentioned manner and polished. 

They were then subjected to 10% phosphoric acid 

treatment for 3–5 s 23 followed by 5% sodium 

hypochloride immersion for 5 min. 24 After being 

extensively rinsed, the specimens were dried 

gold-sputter coated and observed using a scanning 

electron microscope (JSM 6335F; JEOL Ltd, 

Tokyo, Japan). 

Results 

Two-way ANOVA showed that the mTBS results 

(Table 3) were significantly influenced by the 

technique (pZ0.000) but not by the type of 

adhesive (pZ0.836). The interaction of these two 

factors was significant (pZ0.025), indicating that 

the differences that existed between two techniques 

(total-etch and self-etch) were not dependent 

on the type of adhesive. 

Multiple comparisons (post hoc Tukey’s test) 

revealed that total-etch technique exhibited significantly 

higher bond strength values than the selfetch 

technique with both filled (pZ0.000) and 

unfilled adhesives (pZ0.031). The mTBS of the filled 

adhesive One-Step Plus (38.8G12.2 MPa) and the 

unfilled adhesive One-Step (33.9G8.5 MPa) were 

not significantly different when they were used with 

the total etch (pZ0.298), and with the self-etch 


technique (22.4G4.0 and 26.4G7.5 MPa, respectively) 

(pZ0.459). 

SEM observations of the resin-dentin interfaces 

revealed that the thickness of the hybrid layers 

Figure 1 (A) Scanning electron micrograph of the resin– 

dentin interface bonded with One-Step Plus with totaletch 

technique after argon ion etching. Hybrid layer was 

3 mm thick. Fillers were uniformly dispersed in the 

adhesive layer and were evident around the tubuler 

orifices and in the tubules (arrow). c, composite; fa, filled 

adhesive; h, hybrid layer; d, dentin. (B) Scanning electron 

micrograph of the resin–dentin interface bonded with 

One-Step Plus with total-etch technique subjected to 

sequential acid–base treatment. Hybrid layer was 

approximately 3 mm thick and resin-tags (arrow) penetrating 

into dentinal tubules were clearly observed. 

Adhesive layer was 17 mm thick. c, composite; fa, filled 

adhesive; h, hybrid layer; d, dentin.



dentin interface bonded with One-Step Plus with selfetch 

technique after argon ion etching. Thickness of the 

hybrid layer (3.5 mm) was similar to the One-Step Plus 

total-etch group (Fig. 1(A) and (B)) and the adhesive 

layer was 10 mm thick. c, composite; fa, filled adhesive; 

h, hybrid layer; d, dentin. (B) Scanning electron 


One-Step Plus with self-etch technique subjected to 

sequential acid–base treatment. Thickness of the hybrid 

layer (3.5 mm) and the adhesive layer (17 mm) were 

similar to the One-Step Plus total-etch group (Fig. 1(B)). 

Resin penetration into dentinal tubules were observed 

(arrow) c, composite; fa, filled adhesive; h, hybrid layer; 

d, dentin; g, gap induced between hybrid layer and 

adhesive. 

created with the filled One-Step Plus and the 

unfilled One-Step adhesives using the total-etch 

technique were approximately 3 mm (Figs. 1(A) and 

(B), 3(A) and (B)), and when using self-etch 

technique, the hybrid layers of both adhesives 

were also a similar thickness of 3.5 mm (Figs. 2(A) 

and (B), 4(A) and (B)). The adhesive layers achieved 

with the filled adhesive One-Step Plus both with 

total-etch and self-etch techniques were thicker 

(12–17 and 10–17 mm, respectively; Figs. 1(A) and 

(B), 2(A) and (B)) than the unfilled adhesive One- 

Step (2 mm) (Figs. 3(A) and (B), 4(A)). Fillers were 


dentin interface bonded with One-Step with total-etch 

technique after argon ion etching. The hybrid layer was 

3 mm thick and the adhesive layer was 2 mm thick. 

Adhesive layer (a) created with the unfilled adhesive 

was very thin (compare Fig. 1(A) and (B)). c, composite; 

h, hybrid layer; d, dentin. (B) Scanning electron 


One-Step with total-etch technique subjected to sequential 

acid–base treatment. The hybrid layer was 3 mm thick 

and the adhesive layer was only 2 mm thick. Resin-tags 

(arrow) were penetrated deeply into dentinal tubules. 

Adhesive layer (a) created with the unfilled adhesive 

was very thin (compare Fig. 1(A) and (B)). c, composite, 

h, hybrid layer, d, dentin. 

uniformly dispersed in the adhesive layers (Figs. 

1(A) and (B), 2(A)) and were evident around the 

tubular orifices and into some dentin tubules 

(Fig. 1(A)) with the total-etch technique. 

Failure modes of the specimens in various 

groups are shown in Table 4. SEM of the 

representative debonded specimens are shown 

in Figs. 5–8. Chi-squared analysis revealed that 

One-Step Plus self-etch group, which provided 

the lowest mTBS among the all groups, was 

significantly different from the other groups 

(p!0.05) and 85% of the specimens showed

288 


dentin interface bonded with One-Step with self-etch 

technique after argon ion etching. Thickness of the hybrid 

layer (3.5 mm) was similar to the One-Step total-etch 

group (Fig. 3(A) and (B)). The unfilled adhesive layer was 

only 2 mm thick (compare Fig. 2(A) and (B)). c, composite; 

a, adhesive; h, hybrid layer; d, dentin. (B) Scanning 

electron micrograph of the resin–dentin interface bonded 

with One-Step with self-etch technique subjected to 

sequential acid–base treatment. Thickness of the hybrid 

layer (3.5 mm) was similar to the One-Step total-etch 

group (Fig. 3(A) and (B)). c, composite; a, adhesive; h, 

hybrid layer; d, dentin, g, gap induced in the adhesive 

layer and between hybrid layer and adhesive layer. 

adhesive failures (Fig. 6). Using total-etch technique, 

the filled adhesive One-Step Plus (Fig. 5) 

and unfilled adhesive One-Step (Fig. 7) showed 

mostly mixed failures. 

Discussion 


Filled adhesives were expected to act as an 

intermediate shock-absorbing elastic layer 

between composite resin and dentin, thus increasing 

the bond strength to dentin. 1,3,20 Many studies 

evaluated comparisons between commercially 

available filled and unfilled adhesives however, 

the advantages of these adhesives as stress buffers 

remain unpredictable 7 and have not been substantiated 

with in vitro bond tests 25–29 and a clinical 

trial. 30 Filler type, size, shape, its surface characteristics, 

their interaction with the resin matrix and 

various solvents in the adhesives may affect the 

bond strength. 20,21,31–33 The unfilled adhesive One- 

Step and filled adhesive One-Step Plus, used in this 

study, utilizes acetone as a solvent. Besides, One- 

Step Plus consists of 8.5% Glass fillers with an 

average particle size of 1 mm. SEM observations of 

the resin-dentin interfaces revealed that the 

thickness of the hybrid layer created with One- 

Step Plus was almost similar to that achieved with 

One-Step both with total-etch (approximately 

3 mm; Figs. 1(B) and 3(B), respectively) and selfetch 

(approximately 3.5 mm; Figs. 2(B) and 4(B)) 

techniques. Conversely, the adhesive layer of the 

filled adhesive was thicker (Figs. 1(A) and (B), 2(A) 

and (B)) than the unfilled adhesive (Fig. 3(A) and 

(B), 4(A)). Filler particles were found around the 

tubular orifices and in some dentin tubules 

(Fig. 1(A)) with the total-etch technique, however 

they were not capable of penetrating into the 

spaces between collagen fibers because the width 

of interfibrillar spaces is about 20 nm. 9 The results 

of the microtensile bond test showed that bond 

strengths to dentin between filled adhesive One- 

Step Plus and the unfilled adhesive One-Step were 

not significantly different when they were used with 

the total etch (38.8G12.2 and 33.9G8.5 MPa, 

respectively) and with the self-etch technique 

(22.4G4.0 and 26.4G7.5 MPa, respectively). 

These results might indicate that the penetration 

ability of the resin monomer and the evaporation 

rate of water/solvent from dentin subsurface are 

not so different between filled and unfilled 

Table 4 Failure modes of the specimens after microtensile bond test. 

Groups Adhesive Mixed Cohesive in dentin Cohesive in composite 

One-Step Plus total-etch 3 15 2 – 

One-Step Plus self-etch 17 3 – – 

One-Step total-etch 5 15 – – 

One-Step self-etch 14 6 – – 

Adhesive, between resin and dentin; Mixed, partially adhesive, partially cohesive failure in bonding resin or hybrid layer; Cohesive in 

dentin; Cohesive in resin.


Figure 5 Scanning electron micrograph of the fractured 

surface of One-Step Plus total-etch group showing 

mixed failure. d: cohesive in dentin, b: cohesive in 

bonding resin, a: adhesive failure. 

adhesives, although they have different viscosities 

because of the 8.5% filler load. Moreover, similar 

bond strengths to dentin may be due to the 

application of resin composites to a flat dentin 

surface because the polymerization shrinkage of 

the composite resin would minimize stress at the 

bonded interface. 26 

Stress distribution during tensile testing 

between filled and unfilled adhesives has been 

expected to be different because adhesives containing 

fillers showed higher elastic modulus than 

unfilled resins. 25 However, the failure modes of the 

filled and unfilled adhesives with total-etch technique 

(Figs. 5 and 7, respectively) were similar 


surface of One-Step Plus self-etch group showing 

adhesive failure. 


surface of One-Step total-etch group showing 

mixed failure. a: adhesive failure, b: cohesive in bonding 

resin. 

showing predominantly mixed failure (Figs. 5 

and 7, respectively) and also similar with the 

self-etch technique showing adhesive failure 

(Figs. 6 and 8, respectively). This may be due to 

the fact that the application of a thin layer of a 

more flexible adhesive (lower elastic modulus) 

(Figs. 3(A) and 4(A)) led to the same stress relief as 

thick layers of a less flexible adhesive (higher 

elastic modulus) 34 (Figs. 1(A) and 2(A)). 

Self-etch adhesives have been classified on their 

ability to penetrate smear layers and their depth of 

demineralization into the subsurface dentin as 

mild, intermediary strong and strong. 16,35 The 

self-etching primer Tyrian SPE used in this study 


surface of One-Step self-etch group showing 

adhesive failure.

290 

can be considered as a strong self-etching primer 

because of its low pH, 1.0. 36 This high acidity 

results in deeper demineralization and the hybrid 

layer thickness using the self-etching primer Tyrian 

SPE resembled those of the total-etch technique 

both with filled and unfilled adhesives, whose 

thickness is different from the other self-etch 

primer/adhesive systems (i.e.: Clearfil SE Bond). 37 

However as previously reported hybrid layer thickness 

does not correlate with bond strength values 38 

and microtensile bond strengths to dentin in 

comparison to the total-etch technique was compromised 

when the self-etching primer Tyrian SPE 

was used (Table 3). In addition, the debonded 

specimens of the Tyrian SPE groups showed mainly 

adhesive failures (Figs. 6 and 8), whereas the totaletch 

specimens showed mostly mixed failures 

(Figs. 5 and 7). These lower bond strengths using 

Tyrian SPE both with filled and unfilled adhesives 

may be attributed to these factors: Tyrian SPE 

contains a high concentration of ethanol and water. 

Although it would be desirable to remove all water 

and solvent at the end of the etching time, acidic 

monomers, dissolved calcium and phosphate ions 

may lower their vapor pressure. Residual water in 

the dentin subsurface may interfere with polymerization 

of the mixture of the self-etching primer 

and the adhesive resin, thereby lowering the quality 

of the hybrid layer. 39 

In addition to this, the problem may be further 

aggravated by the addition of One-Step Plus and 

One-Step, which also contains a high concentration 

of acetone. It has been shown that incomplete 

removal of acetone from the adhesive layer of twostep 

total-etch adhesives resulted in poor polymerization 

of resin and crack formation in the 

adhesive layer or between adhesive and hybrid 

layer, leading to premature bond failure. 40–42 The 

observed gaps in One-Step Plus (Fig. 2(B)) and One- 

Step (Fig. 4(B)) self-etch groups may have been 

originated from or may have been increased by air 

drying and desiccating the specimens for SEM 

observation. However since such gaps or cracks 

were not evident in total-etch groups, and since all 

specimens were treated in the same manner, they 

may have been attributed to poorly polymerized 

hybrid/adhesive layers. 

In conclusion, the 8.5% glass-filled adhesive One- 

Step Plus did not show any beneficial effect than the 

unfilled adhesive One-Step on the mTBS to dentin 

with total-etch and self-etch techniques. Irrespective 

from the adhesive type, self-etch technique 

revealed lower bond strengths than the total-etch 

technique. Further research is necessary to compare 

the effects of fillers in adhesives with the same resin 

composition and solvent on bonding to dentin within 

various cavity shapes and on the durability of the 

resin-dentin bonds made with these adhesives using 

total-etch and self-etch techniques. 

References 


1. Kemp-Scholte CM, Davidson CL. Complete marginal seal of 

Class V resin composite restorations effected by increased 

flexibility. J Dent Res 1990;69:1240–3. 

2. Brannström M. Communication between the oral cavity and 

the dental pulp associated with restorative treatment. 

Operative Dent 1984;9:57–68. 

3. Van Meerbeek B, Willems G, Celis JP, Roos JR, Braem M, 

Lambrechts P, et al. Assessment by nano-indentation of the 

hardness and elasticity of the resin-dentin bonding area. 

J Dent Res 1993;72:1434–42. 

4. Opdam NJ, Roeters FJ, Feilzer AJ, Smale I. A radiographic 

and scanning electron microscopic study of approximal 

margins of Class II resin composite restorations placed 

in vivo. J Dent 1998;26:319–27. 

5. Perdigão J, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B, Braem M, 

Yıldız E, Yücel T, et al. The interaction of adhesive systems 

with human dentin. Am J Dent 1996;9:167–73. 

6. Swift Jr EJ, Triolo Jr P, Barkmeier WW, Bird JL, Bounds SJ. 

Effect of low viscosity resins on the performance of dental 

adhesives. Am J Dent 1996;9:100–4. 

7. Labella R, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B, Vanherle G. 

Polymerization shrinkage and elasticity of flowable composites 

and filled adhesives. Dent Mater 1999;15:128–37. 

8. Van Meerbeek B, Yoshida Y, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G, 

Duke ES, Eick JD, et al. TEM study of two water based 

adhesive systems bonded to dry and wet dentin. J Dent Res 

1998;77:50–9. 

9. Tay FR, Moulding KM, Pashley DH. Distribution of nanofillers 

from a simplified-step adhesive in acid-conditioned dentin. 

J Adhes Dent 1999;1:103–17. 

10. Tay FR, Sano H, Tagami J, Hashimato M, Moulding KM, Yiu C, 

et al. Ultrastructural study of a glass ionomer-based, all-inone 

adhesive. J Dent 2001;29:489–98. 

11. Choi KK, Condon JR, Ferracane JL. The effects of adhesive 

thickness on polymerization contraction stress of composite. 

J Dent Res 2000;79:812–7. 

12. da Cunha Mello FS, Feilzer AJ, de Gee AJ, Davidson CL. 

Sealing ability of eight resin bonding systems in a Class II 

restoration after mechanical fatiguing. Dent Mater 1997;13: 

372–6. 

13. Deliperi S, Bardwell DN, Papathanasiou A, Perry R. Microleakage 

of resin based liner materials and condensable 

composites using filled and unfilled adhesives. Am J Dent 

2003;16:351–5. 

14. Kanca J. Resin bonding to wet substrate, I. bonding to 

dentin. Quintessence Int 1992;23:39–41. 

15. Watanabe I, Nakabayashi N, Pashley DH. Bonding to ground 

dentin by a phenyl-P self etching primer. J Dent Res 1994;73: 

1212–20. 

16. Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, 

Vijay P, et al. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status 

and future challenges. Operative Dent 2003;28:215–35. 

17. Nakabayashi N, Kojima K, Masahura E. The promotion of 

adhesion by the infiltration of monomers into tooth 

substrates. J Biomed Mater Res 1992;16:265–73. 

18. Türkün SL. Clinical evaluation of a self-etching and a one 

bottle adhesive system at two years. J Dent 2003;31:527–34.


19. Spencer P, Wang Y, Walker MP, Wieliczka DM, Swafford JR. 

Interfacial chemistry of the dentin/adhesive bond. J Dent 

Res 2000;79:1458–63. 

20. Nunes MF, Swift Jr EJ, Perdigao J. Effects of adhesive 

composition on microtensile bond strength to human dentin. 

Am J Dent 2001;14:340–3. 

21. Kim JS, Cho BH, Lee IB, Um CM, Lim BS, Oh MH, et al. Effect 

of the hydrophilic nanofiller loading on the mechanical 

properties and the microtensile bond strength of an ethanolbased 

one-bottle dentin adhesive. J Biomed Mater Res Part B 

2005;72B:284–91. 

22. Inokoshi S, Hosoda H, Harnirattisai C, Shimada Y. Interfacial 

structure between dentin and seven dentin bonding systems 

revealed using argon beam etching. Operative Dent 1993; 

19:8–16. 

23. Gwinnett AJ, Kanca J. Interfacial morphology of resin 

composite and shiny erosion lesions. Am J Dent 1992;5:315–7. 

24. Wang T, Nakabayashi N. Effect of 2-(methacryloxy)ethylphenyl 

hydrogen phosphate on adhesion to dentin. J Dent 

Res 1991;70:59–66. 

25. Takahashi A, Sato Y, Uno S, Pereira PN, Sano H. Effects of 

mechanical properties of adhesive resins on bond strength to 

dentin. Dent Mater 2002;18:263–8. 

26. Braga RR, Cesar PF, Gonzaga CC. Tensile bond strength offilled 

and unfilled adhesives to dentin. Am J Dent 2000;13:73–6. 

27. Gallo JR, Comeaux R, Haines B, Xu X, Burgess JO. Shear bond 

strength of four filled dentin bonding systems. Operative 

Dent 2001;26:44–7. 

28. Montes MAJR, de Goes MF, da Cunha MRB, Soares AB. A 

morphological and tensile bond strength evaluation of an 

unfilled adhesive with low-viscosity composites and a 

filled adhesive in one and two coats. J Dent 2001;29: 

435–41. 

29. Nikolaenko SA, Lohbauer U, Roggendorf M, Petschelt A, 

Dasch W, Frankenberger R. Influence of c-factor and layering 

technique on microtensile bond strength to dentin. Dent 

Mater 2004;20:579–85. 

30. Swift Jr EJ, Perdigao J, Wilder AD, Heymann Jr HO, 

Sturdevant JR, Bayne SC. Clinical evaluation of two one 

bottle dentin adhesives at three years. J Am Dent Assoc 

2001;132:1117–23. 

31. Li Y, Swarts ML, Phillips RW, Moore BK, Roerts TA. Effect of 

filler content and size on properties of composites. J Dent 

Res 1985;64:1396–401. 

32. Miyazaki M, Ando S, Hinoura K, Onose H, Moore BK. Influence 

of filler addition to bonding agents on shear bond strength to 

bovine dentin. Dent Mater 1995;11:234–8. 

33. Armstrong SR, Keller JC, Boyer DB. The influence of 

water storage and C-factor on the dentin-resin composite 

microtensile bond strength and debond pathway utilizing 

a filled and unfilled adhesive resin. Dent Mater 2001;17: 

268–76. 

34. Ausiello P, Apicella A, Davidson CL. Effect of adhesive layer 

properties on stress distrubution in composite restorations-a 

3D finite element analysis. Dent Mater 2002;18:295–303. 

35. Tay FR, Pashley DH. Aggressiveness of contemporary selfetching 

systems, I: depth of penetration beyond dentin 

smear layers. Dent Mater 2001;17:296–308. 

36. Lopes GC, Marson FC, Vieira LCC, de Andrada MAC, 

Baratieri LN. Composite bond strength to enamel with selfetching 

primers. Operative Dent 2004;29:424–9. 

37. Tay FR, Carvalho R, Sano H, Pashley DH. Effect of smear 

layers of the bonding of a self-etching primer to dentin. 

J Adhes Dent 2000;2:99–116. 

38. Prati C, Chersoni S, Mongiorgi R, Pashley DH. Resininfiltrated 

dentin layer formation of new bonding systems. 

Operative Dent 1998;23:185–94. 

39. Pashley EL, Zhang Y, Lockwood PE, Rueggeberg FA, 

Pashley DH. Effects of HEMA on water evaporation from 

water-HEMA mixtures. Dent Mater 1998;14:6–10. 

40. Zheng L, Pereira PN, Nakajima M, Sano H, Tagami J. 

Relationship between adhesive thickness and microtensile 

bond strength. Operative Dent 2001;26:97–104. 

41. Cho BH, Dickens SH. Effects of the acetone content of single 

solution dentin bonding agents on the adhesive layer 

thickness and the microtensile bond strength. Dent Mater 

2004;20:107–15. 

42. Dickens SH, Cho BH. Interpretation of bond failure through 

conversion and residual solvent measurements and Weibull 

analyses of flexural and microtensile bond strengths of 

bonding agents. Dent Mater 2005;21:354–64.

Microtensile bond strength of a filled vs unfilled adhesive to dentin ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?