Qu

by
ht

opyrig

C
All
eR
ech
te

vo
rbe
ha
lte
n

nt
In Vitro Bonding Performance of All-in-one Adhesives.
e ss e n z
Part I Microtensile Bond Strengths
Jorge Perdigoa/George Gomesb/Renata Gondoc/Jon W. Fundingslandd

Purpose: The objective of this project was to compare the microtensile bond strengths (TBS) of five all-in-one adhesives using two 2-step adhesives as controls.
Materials and Methods: Eighty-four extracted human molars were randomly assigned to one of three substrates:
dentin, unground enamel, or ground enamel. For each substrate, specimens were randomly assigned to one of five allin-one adhesives: (1) Adper Prompt L-Pop (AP, 3M ESPE); (2) Clearfil S3 Bond (S3, Kuraray); (3) G-Bond (GB, GC America) (4) iBond (iB, Heraeus Kulzer); (5) Xeno IV (XE, Dentsply Caulk). Adper Single Bond Plus (SB, 3M ESPE) was used as
a two-step etch-and-rinse control, while Clearfil SE Bond (SE, Kuraray) was used as a two-step self-etching control.
Crowns were built with Filtek Z250 (3M ESPE) and sectioned in x and y directions. The resulting sticks were fractured
in tension at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Statistical analysis was computed for each substrate with one-way
ANOVA and Duncans post-hoc test at p < 0.05.
Results: Means SD are given in MPa; pretesting failures are shown in brackets. Dentin SE: 79.1 20.5, [0/85];
SB: 76.3 19.3, [0/82]; AP: 51.6 21.9, [0/90]; XE: 40.5 22.9, [7/81]; S3: 27.8 13.2, [7/91]; iB: 17.4 15.6,
[25/91]; GB: 11.7 7.4, [5/92]. Unground enamel SB: 33.1 10.5, [0/69]; AP: 27.6 7.5, [0/66]; S3: 24.6 12.0,
[0/70]; SE: 16.8 11.7, [3/60]; XE 15.4 14.1, [16/63]; iB: 11.2 11.5, [18/64]; GB: 9.5 12.4, [31/63]. Ground
enamel SB: 33.7 9.1, [0/69]; AP: 33.2 7.9, [0/77]; SE: 26.4 9.5, [0/67]; S3: 25.5 8.9; [0/56]; XE: 21.0
8.9, [3/68]; GB: 18.2 10.3, [4/68]; iB: 12.3 8.9, [11/52]. For dentin, the Duncans test ranked the means in 6 statistical subsets: GB <iB <S3 <XE < AP < SB = SE. For unground enamel, means were ranked in 4 statistical subsets: GB
= iB < XE = SE < S3 = AP < SB. For ground enamel, the means were also ranked in 4 statistical subsets: iB < GB = XE <
S3 = SE< AP = SB.
Conclusion: The bonding ability of the newest all-in-one adhesives depends on their specific composition. In light of
the low in vitro bond strengths and high rate of spontaneous failures of some all-in-one adhesives compared to those
of the two-step adhesives, the newest adhesives should be screened more strictly before they are recommended for
clinical use.
Keywords: dental adhesion, acid etching, bond strength testing.
J Adhes Dent 2006; 8: 367-373.

a Associate Professor, Division of Operative Dentistry, Department of Restorative Sciences, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
b PhD Candidate, School of Dentistry, University of Granada, Granada, Spain;

Clinical Instructor, Postgraduate Program in Operative Dentistry, Instituto Superior de Cincias da Sade Egas Moniz, Monte da Caparica, Portugal.
c PhD Candidate, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Department of Opera-

tive Dentistry, Florianpolis, SC, Brazil.

d Scientific Affairs Manager, 3M ESPE Dental Products, St. Paul, MN, USA.

Reprint requests: Dr. Jorge Perdigo, University of Minnesota, Division of Operative Dentistry, Department of Restorative Sciences, 8-450 Moos Tower, 515
SE Delaware St., Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. Fax: +1-612-625-7440. e-mail:
perdi001@umn.edu

Vol 8, No 6, 2006

Submitted for publication: 05.04.06; accepted for publication: 04.05.06.

tching enamel with phosphoric acid has been considered the golden standard41 for bonding resin-based materials to tooth structure since Dr. Buonocore described the
concept 50 years ago.6 The micromechanical nature of the
interaction of adhesives with enamel is a result of the infiltration of resin monomers into the microporosities left by the
acid dissolution of enamel and subsequent enveloping of
the exposed hydroxyapatite crystals with the polymerized
monomers within the microspaces of the enamel surface.41
When the application of phosphoric acid was extended to
dentin,14 dentin bond strengths improved substantially.21
With total-etch (or etch-and-rinse49) adhesives, after rinsing
367

Perdigo et al

Qu

Table 1 Composition of adhesives tested and respective manufacturers

nt

by
ht

opyrig

C
All
eR
ech
te

vo
rbe
ha
lte
n

e ss e n z

Manufacturer

Composition

Type

Adper Prompt L-Pop (AP)

3M ESPE

Adper Single Bond

Plus (SB)

3M ESPE

All-in-one self-etching
(mixing required)
Two-step etch-and-rinse

Clearfil S3 Bond (S3)

Kuraray
America
Kuraray
America

HEMA phosphates, HEMA, bis-GMA, modified

polyalkenoic acid, water, photoinitiator
HEMA, bis-GMA, DMAs, methacrylate functional
copolymer of polyacrylic and polyitaconic acids,
water, ethanol, nanofiller, photoinitiator
10-MDP, HEMA, bis-GMA, water, ethanol, silanated
colloidal silica, camphorquinone, photoinitiator
Primer: 10-MDP, HEMA, hydrophilic DMA, tertiary
amine, water
Bonding agent: 10-MDP, HEMA, bis-GMA, hydrophilic
DMA, tertiary amine, silanated colloidal silica,
photoinitiator
4-MET, UDMA, phosphate monomer, DMA component,
fumed silica filler, acetone, water, photoinitiator
UDMA, 4-MET, glutaraldehyde, acetone, water, stabilizer,
photoinitiator
UDMA, PENTA, acetone, polymerizeable trimethacrylate
resin, 2 polymerizeable DMA resins, photoinitiator

Clearfil SE Bond (SE)

G-Bond (GB)

GC America

iBond (iB)

Heraeus Kulzer

Xeno IV (XE)

Dentsply Caulk

All-in one self-etching

(no mixing required)
Two-step self-etching

All-in-one self-etching
(no mixing required)
All-in-one self-etching
(no mixing required)
All-in-one self-etching
(no mixing required)

Abbreviations: 10-MDP = 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate, 4-MET = 4-methacryloxyethyl trimellitic acid, bis-GMA = bisphenol glycidyl
methacrylate, DMA = dimethacrylate, HEMA = 2- hydroxyethyl methacrylate, PENTA = dipentaerythritol penta-acrylate phosphate, UDMA = urethane
dimethacrylate.

the acid, resin monomers are applied on dentin and permeate the water-filled spaces between adjacent collagen fibers
that used to be occupied by the dissolved hydroxyapatite
crystals. This intermingling of different materials results in a
hybrid tissue composed of collagen, resin, residual hydroxyapatite, and traces of water. The adhesive also flows into the
lumen of the tubules where it forms resin tags upon setting,
which are commonly observed in electron microscopy studies.31 The mechanism of bonding to dentin is, therefore,
both micromechanical and macromechanical.7
The recent development of nonrinsing adhesives (also
known as self-etching adhesives) has changed the traditional concept of bonding. Nonrinsing adhesives do not require a separate acid-etching step, as they condition and
prime enamel and dentin simultaneously, relying on their
ability to infiltrate through smear layers and partially dissolve
hydroxyapatite to generate a resin-infiltrated zone with minerals incorporated.49 As the dental substrate is not rinsed,
this makes these materials more user friendly, because the
application time is reduced compared to etch-and-rinse adhesives.49
Two generations of self-etching adhesives are currently
available two-step adhesives, which consist of an acidic
primer and a hydrophobic bonding resin, and all-in-one adhesives in which acidic primer and bonding resin are combined into one solution. Two-step self-etching adhesives
bond at an acceptable level to normal dentin and to ground
enamel in vitro.4,7,17,27,30,32 Conversely, two-step self-etching
materials may not bond as well to unground enamel and
sclerotic dentin.22,30,43 The first generation of all-in-one self368

etching adhesives resulted in lower dentin bond strengths

than their two-step counterparts.13,49 Likewise, the enamel
bond strengths of the earliest all-in-one adhesives were lower than the enamel bond strengths associated with adhesives that rely on a separate etching step.32 Because of their
higher pH, self-etching adhesives result in a shallow enamel demineralization compared to that attained with phosphoric acid.30,32
In vitro bond strength tests are important screening tests
for new dentin adhesives prior to their introduction to the
market. As polymerization shrinkage of resin-based composites stresses the bonding interface, adhesives with low
bond strengths do not resist the polymerization stresses, resulting in marginal gaps, recurrent caries, and pulpal irritation.3,12 Numerous new simplified adhesives have been put
on the dental market within the last few years, sometimes
without comprehensive testing to substantiate their performance. Therefore, the objective of this in vitro study was to
compare the microtensile bond strengths of five recently
marketed all-in-one adhesives using 2 two-step adhesives as
controls. The null hypothesis is that the bonding ability of the
newest all-in-one adhesives is not inferior to that provided by
two-step adhesives.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighty-four extracted, sound human molars stored in 0.5%
chloramine solution for up to one month were used in this
study. Teeth were left in distilled water for 24 h at 4C prior
The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry

opyrig

t es

80

by
ht

Qu

C
All
eR
ePerdigo
et al
cht
ev
orb
eh
alt
en
n

70

se nz

60
50

MPa 40
30
20
10

Fig 1 Mean bond strengths. For dentin:

GB<iB<S3<XE<AP<SB=SE (p<0.05). For
unground enamel: GB= iB<XE =SE
<S3=AP<SB (p<0.05). For ground enamel: iB<GB=XE<S3 =SE <AP=SB (p<0.05).

0
AP

to use and then cleaned with pumice with a prophy cup under slow speed for 15 s. The teeth were randomly assigned
to one of three bonding substrates: dentin, unground enamel, and ground enamel. For each substrate, 4 teeth were randomly assigned to each one of the 7 adhesives (Table 1).
For dentin, 28 teeth were used. The teeth were attached
to a phenolic ring (Buehler; Lake Bluff, IL, USA) with sticky
wax. Middle dentin was exposed by sectioning the crowns
with a precision slow-speed diamond saw (Isomet 1000,
Buehler) under distilled water cooling. Dentin was polished
with wet 600-grit SiC abrasive paper (Buehler) for 60 s to create a standardized smear layer.29 The adhesives were applied to dentin as per manufacturers instructions. Crowns
were then restored with Filtek Z250 composite resin (shade
A2, 3M ESPE; St. Paul MN, USA) in 3 increments of 2 mm
each. Each increment was irradiated with a 2500 Curing
Light (3M ESPE) for 40 s. The output of the curing light was
periodically checked with a radiometer (Sybron Kerr; Orange,
CA, USA) and was in excess of 600 mW/cm2. The crowns
were sectioned with a slow-speed diamond saw under water
(Isomet 1000) in x and y directions to obtain sticks with a
cross section of 0.7 0.2 mm2.
For unground enamel, an area of approximately 8 x 4
mm2 was marked on the proximal surfaces of 28 mandibular molars. Mandibular molars were used because of their
wider proximal surfaces relative to maxillary molars. Four
teeth were randomly assigned to each one of the 7 adhesives. The adhesives and composite resin were applied as
for the dentin specimens, except that phosphoric acid etching was not performed on unground enamel as some manufacturers recommend. Teeth were sectioned with a diamond saw (Isomet 1000) in x and y directions to obtain
bonded sticks with a cross-sectional area of 1.0 0.2 mm2.
For ground enamel, 28 mandibular molars were also
used. The methodology was identical to that used for unground enamel, except that the enamel surface was roughVol 8, No 6, 2006

S3

GB

Ground enamel

iB

XE

Unground Enamel

SB

SE

Dentin

ened with a coarse diamond bur (Two Striper, Premier Products; Plymouth Meeting, PA, USA) for 5 s at high-speed under water cooling.
The sticks were tested individually by setting and attaching them on the Geraldelis jig33 using cyanoacrylate cement (Zapit, Dental Ventures of America; Corona, CA, USA).
The sticks were then submitted to a tension load using an
Instron 4204 testing machine (Instron; Canton, MA, USA) at
1 mm/min crosshead speed. A Mitutoyo absolute digital
caliper (Mitutoyo; Kanogawa, Japan) with an accuracy of
0.001 mm was used to measure the sides of the bonding interface and calculate the bonding area in mm2. The load (in
kg), and the bonding surface area of the specimen were registered on a work sheet and microtensile bond strengths calculated in MPa. Pretesting failures that occurred during
specimen preparation were counted as 0 MPa. The mode of
failure (adhesive, cohesive, or mixed) was classified under a
light microscope at 10X magnification.
A one-way ANOVA followed by Duncans post-hoc test at p
< 0.05 was computed for each substrate. Statistical analysis was carried out with the SPSS 11.5 for Windows (SPSS;
Chicago, IL, USA) software package.

RESULTS
The results are displayed in Table 2 and Fig 1. Each of the
three separate one-way ANOVA (one for each substrate) identified a statistically significant difference between at least
one pair of means at p < 0.0001. For dentin, Duncans posthoc test ranked the means into 6 statistical subsets at p <
0.05: GB <iB <S3 <XE < AP < SB = SE. For unground enamel, Duncans post-hoc test ranked the means into 4 statistical subsets at p < 0.05: GB = iB < XE = SE < S3 = AP < SB.
For ground enamel, Duncans post-hoc test ranked the
means into 4 statistical subsets at p < 0.05: iB < GB = XE <
369

* For the same substrate, means with the same superscript letters are not significantly different at p < 0.05. # The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes was used to compute the
post-hoc Duncan test. A = adhesive; C = cohesive; M = mixed.

48/2/6
56/5/6
63/2/3
51/0/1
57/2/9
25.5Y 8.9
26.4Y 9.5
18.2X 10.3
12.3W 8.9
21.0X 8.9
0
0
5.9
21.1
4.4
67/0/3
60/0/0
63/0/0
64/0/0
63/0/0
0
5.0
49.2
28.1
25.4
91/0/0
85/0/0
92/0/0
91/0/0
79/2/0
7.7
0
5.4
27.5
8.6
91
85
92
91
81

27.8D 13.2
79.1A 20.5
11.7F 7.4
17.4E 15.6
40.5C 22.9

70
60
63
64
63

24.6b 12.0
16.8c 11.7
9.5d 12.4
11.2d 11.5
15.4c 14.1

56
67
68
52
68

45/8/16
33.7Z 9.1
0
51/5/13
0
79/2/1
0
82

76.3A 19.3

69

33.1a 10.5

69

59/8/10
77
52/3/11
27.6b 7.5
0
66
87/3/0
51.6B 21.9
0

failure
(A/C/M)
testing
failures
(%)

90

Adper Prompt
L-Pop (AP)
Adper Single Bond
Plus (SB)
Clearfil S3 Bond (S3)
Clearfil SE Bond (SE)
G-Bond (GB)
iBond (iB)
Xeno IV (XE)

testing
failures
(%)

failure
(A/C/M)

n
Type of
Pren
Type of
Mean# SD
Pren

33.2Z 7.9

failure
(A/C/M)
testing
failures
(%)

Mean# SD
Mean# SD

Pre-

Ground Enamel
Unground Enamel
Dentin

Table 2 Mean bond strengths and standard deviations in MPa*

370

vo
r

eh
S3 = SE< AP = SB. Adper Single Bond Plus yielded thebhigha
est mean bond strengths for each of the n
two enamel sub-lten
t esconsistentstrates. Mean bond strengths of GB and iB were
se nz
ly ranked in the two lowest subsets regardless of the substrate. Bonds made with S3 resulted in statistically higher
mean bond strengths than its two-step predecessor SE on
unground enamel. On dentin, S3 resulted in statistically lower mean bond strengths than SE (27.8 MPa vs 79.1 MPa, respectively). On ground enamel there was no significant difference between the resin-enamel bond strengths for these
two adhesives from the same manufacturer.
Out of the five all-in-one adhesives, AP produced statistically higher bond strengths than the others, except when applied on unground enamel. In the latter case, the bond
strengths of S3 were similar to those of AP. On ground enamel, bonds produced with AP resulted in bond strengths statistically similar to the etch-and-rinse control, SB.
On unground enamel, 49.2% of the sticks bonded with
GB, 28.1% of the sticks bonded with iB, and 25.4% of the
sticks bonded with XE failed prior to testing. On ground
enamel, 21.1% of the sticks bonded with iB still failed prior
to testing. The same tendency was observed on dentin, in
which 27.5% of the iB specimens failed spontaneously. AP,
SB, and S3 were the only adhesives for which there were no
spontaneous enamel failures.
Most failures, including the pretesting debonds, were adhesive in nature. On dentin, there were 7 cohesive failures
and 1 mixed. Ground enamel produced more cohesive/
mixed failures than the other two substrates. For unground
enamel, only AP, SB, and S3 resulted in cohesive/mixed failures. All the cohesive failures on enamel were within the
composite material, whereas on dentin, all seven cohesive
failures were in dentin.

Qu

Type of

Perdigo et al

by
ht

opyrig

C
All
eR
ech
te

DISCUSSION
Self-etching adhesives are composed of aqueous mixtures
of acidic functional monomers, generally phosphoric-acid or
carboxylic-acid esters, with a pH higher than that of phosphoric acid gels.27,30 Water is a very important component
of self-etching adhesives as it participates in the ionization
of the acidic moieties of the self-etching adhesives.16 Although some of the manufacturers recommend a separate
etch of unground enamel, our goal was to investigate the effect of the various all-in-one adhesives on ground and unground enamel. Furthermore, in a clinical setting, extension
of the adhesive and possibly composite flash past the
boundaries of the preparation is possible. Bonding to this
uninstrumented surface is needed to resist potential staining.
The manufacturers of S3 and SE recommend phosphoric acid etching of unground enamel, while the manufacturer of GB states that if additional bond strength to cut enamel cavity margins is required, acid etch with 35-40% phosphoric acid gel, rinse with water and gently dry before using
G-BOND. Non cut enamel should be treated with a 35-40%
phosphoric acid gel as described above. For XE, the respective manufacturer recommends for optimal adhesion,
always instrument (bevel) all enamel and/or margins (carThe Journal of Adhesive Dentistry

opyrig

by
ht

t esstrengths
cycles of thermal fatigue.9 Additionally, the bond
se nz
of iB may be so low that the polymerization shrinkage of the
restorative composite in an occlusal Class I preparation may
exceed the bond strengths of the adhesive to dentin.9 Other factors may play a role in the weak bonding performance
of iB and GB, which are acetone-containing adhesives.
Porosities (or blisters) occur at the bonding interface because most simplified all-in-one adhesives behave as semipermeable membranes.9,39,42,47 These porosities may be a
result of water accumulation either caused by an osmotic
gradient or by monomer-solvent phase separation upon
evaporation of the acetone.44,48 The number and size of
these blisters may also depend of the intensity of the air-drying step.39
XE and AP performed better on unground enamel than
did either GB or iB. This difference may be associated with
the presence of the monomer 4-MET in GB and iB, which
does not have a high affinity or chemical bonding to hydroxyapatite.50 AP is a more aggressive self-etching adhesive
than iB or GB; however the pH of XE is 2.5, according to the
manufacturer.11 The role of XEs penta-phosphate monomer
in chemical bonding to hydroxyapatite-rich enamel is a possible explanation for this apparent discrepancy between
acidity of the material and respective bond strengths. Conflicting reports have been published on the enamel bond
strengths of Xeno III, the predecessor of Xeno IV. On unground enamel, the bond strengths of Xeno III were reported to be statistically similar to the bond strengths of a total
etch adhesive, One-Step.46 Another study reported that
Xeno III resulted in significantly lower enamel bond strengths
than did Prime & Bond NT, the etch-and-rinse adhesive from
the same manufacturer, on both ground and unground
enamel.34
On dentin, a fact that may play a role in the apparent low
bond strengths of XE compared to those of SE and AP is the
high hydrophilicity and consequent higher water sorption
associated with XE.19 XE may undergo a substantial reduction in elastic modulus after water sorption, due to the plasticizing effect of water on this adhesive.19 When a load is applied on the surface of the restoration, if the adhesive has
been plasticized by water, it is likely that the restoration fails
because the stresses cannot be transferred across the adhesive joint. Another factor that may lead to lower bond
strengths is XEs low degree of conversion.18
High dentin bond strengths obtained with SE have been
reported by others.1,49 Although S3 resulted in much lower
dentin bond strengths than SE, a recent study has shown
that S3 is more resistant to mechanical stress than SE.40 On
ground enamel, while both S3 and GB tolerated 20,000
thermal cycles, the bond strengths of S3 were statistically
higher than those of GB, which confirms our findings.25 In
our study, the bond strengths of S3 on unground enamel
were statistically similar to those of a more aggressive selfetching adhesive, AP. This may be a result of two proprietary
chemical attributes. First, there is the presence of the molecule 10-MDP, which has chemical affinity for dental tissues.50 The two hydroxyl groups in the MDP molecule
chelate favorably to calcium.32 Although this molecule is ali

Vol 8, No 6, 2006

Qu

bide or diamond bur) prior to application. The manufacturers of AP and iB do not recommend enamel pre-etching.
SB, an etch-and-rinse two-step adhesive, was ranked in
the highest subset for mean bond strengths regardless of
the substrate. Only AP applied to unground enamel and SE
on dentin resulted in bond strengths statistically similar to
those of SB. This reinforces the idea that etch-and-rinse adhesives are still the benchmark for other adhesives when it
comes to laboratory performance.16,34,49 Self-etching adhesives are classified into three categories according to their
acidity: mild, moderate, and aggressive.30,45 In our study, AP
is considered an aggressive self-etching adhesive (pH ? 0.9)
while the other all-in-one adhesives are mild or moderate (pH
> 1.5).
AP produced relatively high dentin bond strengths compared to other studies,10,37 but were similar to those of others on enamel.34 On dentin, the variation in bond strengths
may be a result of variations on the application method. The
manufacturer recommends rubbing the adhesive continuously for 15 s, followed by the application of a second coat
after gently air drying and curing the first coat. This second
coat, according to our observations, prevents the formation
of dry spots on the dentin surface, which may infiltrate
dentin to a level that results in higher bond strengths.
The mild all-in-one adhesives GB and iB were ranked in
the two lowest subsets of mean bond strengths among all
the adhesives tested regardless of the substrate. Additionally, pre-testing failures were quite prevalent for these two
materials. When the dominant failure mode is adhesive, the
bond strengths are generally low, whereas cohesive failures
are more often associated with higher bond strengths.35 The
very low bond strengths of iB to enamel have been reported
by other authors when the adhesive was applied per manufacturers directions.2,20,38 In a clinical study involving Class
II restorations, the six-month observation showed severe
enamel gaps and marginal discoloration for restorations
bonded with iB (unpublished observations). In a clinical
study on Class V restorations, iB resulted in significantly
more marginal staining at 18 months than did Gluma Solid
Bond, an etch-and-rinse adhesive.36 GB and iB also result in
severe enamel microleakage, especially following thermal
stresses.5,23 Our study confirmed the extremely poor results
of a previously published study with iB.26 Several mechanisms may account for this poor performance as compared
with the other adhesives tested. The magnitude of dentin
bond strengths depends on the degree of infiltration of the
resin monomers into the collagen pretreated with an acidic
conditioner or with phosphoric acid.28 When applied according to manufacturers instructions, the magnitude of
dentin bond strengths of iB suggest that this adhesive may
not infiltrate dentin adequately. One of the immediate consequences of poor collagen infiltration is the number of
pretesting spontaneous failures, which were 25 out of 91
(27.5%) in the present study. A previous study found 51.1%
pretesting failures for the same adhesive.15 The amount of
iB applied in accordance with manufacturers instructions
may not be able to form a uniform layer of resin on the
dentin surface. In fact, the number of coats has been shown
to play an important role in the performance of iB,20 which
means that the technique may have to be optimized by the

C
All
eR
ePerdigo
et al
cht
ev
orb
eh
manufacturer in future versions. Another study found 50%
alt
en
to 66% pretesting failures with iB, with and without
20,000
n

371

Perdigo et al

The results of the present study require the rejection of the

null hypothesis that the recent all-in-one adhesives do not result in bond strengths inferior to those of two-step adhesives.
Further studies are urgently needed in the area of clinical behavior of the newest simplified adhesives, especially because these materials are being increasingly used in patients without proof of clinical efficacy, in spite of several in
vitro reports that have demonstrated their poor performance.

REFERENCES
1. Armstrong SR, Vargas MA, Fang Q, Laffoon JE. Microtensile bond strength
of a total-etch 3-step, total-etch 2-step, self-etch 2-step, and self-etch 1step dentin bonding system through 15-month of water storage. J Adhes
Dent 2003;5:47-56.
2. Atash R, Van den Abbeele A. Bond strengths of eight contemporary adhesives to enamel and to dentine: an in vitro study on bovine primary teeth.
Int J Paediatr Dent 2005;15:264-273.
3. Bergenholtz G. Evidence for bacterial causation of adverse pulpal responses in resin-based restorations. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 2000;11:467480.
4. Blunck U, Roulet JF. Marginal adaptation of compomer class V restorations
in vitro. J Adhes Dent 1999;1:143-151.
5. Brackett MG, Brackett WW, Haisch LD. Microleakage of Class V resin composites placed using self-etching resins: Effect of prior enamel etching.
Quintessence Int 2006;37:109-113.
6. Buonocore MG. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res 1955;34:849-853.
7. Castro FLA, Andrade MF, Duarte Jr. SLL, Vaz LG, Ahid FJM. Effect of 2%
chlorhexidine on microtensile bond strength of composite to dentin. J
Adhes Dent 2003;5:129-138.
8. Chappell RP, Cobb CM, Spencer P, Eick JD. Dentinal tubule anastomosis: a
potential factor in adhesive bonding?. J Prosthet Dent 1994;72:183-188.
9. De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Coutinho E, Poitevin A, Peumans M, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Micro-tensile bond strength of adhesives
bonded to class-I cavity-bottom dentin after thermo-cycling. Dent Mater
2005;21:999-1007.
10. De Munck J, Vargas M, Iracki J, Van Landuyt K, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P,
Van Meerbeek B. One-day bonding effectiveness of new self-etch adhesives to bur-cut enamel and dentin. Oper Dent 2005;30:39-49.
11. DENTSPLY International Caulk Division Material Safety Data Sheet
568890. Available at http://www.caulk.com/ assets/pdfs/ products/
XenoI VMSDS.pdf
12. Fabianelli A, Kugel G, Ferrari M. Efficacy of self-etching primer on sealing
margins of class II restorations. Am J Dent 2003;16:37-41.
13. Frankenberger R, Perdigo J, Rosa BT, Lopes M. "No-bottle" vs "multi-bottle" dentin adhesives--a microtensile bond strength and morphological
study. Dent Mater 2001;17:373-380.
14. Fusayama T, Nakamura M, Kurosaki N, Iwaku M. Non-pressure adhesion of
a new adhesive restorative resin. J Dent Res 1979;58:1364-1370.
15. Gomes G, Perdigo J. Laboratory evaluation of a new simplified self-etch
adhesive [abstract 2975]. J Dent Res 2005;84(special issue A).
16. Goracci C, Sadek FT, Monticelli F, Cardoso PE, Ferrari M. Microtensile bond
strength of self-etching adhesives to enamel and dentin. J Adhes Dent
2004;6:313-318.

372

nt

CONCLUSION

vo

17. Hannig M, Reinhardt KJ, Bott B. Self-etching primer vs phosphoricrb

acid:
eh an
alternative concept for composite-to-enamel bonding. Oper Dent
alt
en
1999;24:172-180.
18. Hoffmann M, Eppinger R, Kastrani A, Grundler A, Erdrich A. FTIR conversion analysis of all-in-one adhesives using different methods [abstract
0293]. J Dent Res 2006;85(special issue A).
19. Ito S, Hashimoto M, Wadgaonkar B, Svizero N, Carvalho RM, Yiu C, Rueggeberg FA, Foulger S, Saito T, Nishitani Y, Yoshiyama M, Tay FR, Pashley DH.
Effects of resin hydrophilicity on water sorption and changes in modulus of
elasticity. Biomaterials 2005;26:6449-6459.
20. Ito S, Tay F, Hashimoto M, Yoshiyama M, Saito T, Brackett WW, Waller JL,
Pashley DH. Effects of multiple coatings of two all-in-one adhesives on
dentin bonding. J Adhes Dent 2005;7:133-141.
21. Kanca J. Resin bonding to wet substrate. I. Bonding to dentin. Quintessence Int 1992;23:39-41.
22. Kanemura N, Sano H, Tagami J. Tensile bond strength to and SEM evaluation of ground and intact enamel surfaces. J Dent 1999;27:523-530.
23. Kubo S, Yokota H, Yokota H, Hayashi Y. Microleakage of cervical composites restored with one-step self-etch systems [abstract 3010]. J Dent Res
2005;84(special issue A).
24. Kuraray Dental. Dental Bonding Agent Clearfil S3 Bond [Clearfil tri-S bond]
Technical
information.
http://www.kuraraydental.com/products/24/S3__Bond_Technical_Information_May2005.pdf
25. Kurokawa H, Amano S, Asaka Y, Miyazaki M, Takamizawa T, Ando S, Moore
BK. Thermal cycling influence on enamel bond of single-step self-etch systems [abstract 1307]. J Dent Res 2006;85(special issue A).
26. Naughton WT, Latta MA. Bond strength of composite using self-etching adhesive systems [abstract 1837]. J Dent Res 2006;85(special issue A).
27. Oliveira SSA, Pugach MK, Hilton JF, Watanabe LG, Marshall SJ, Marshall Jr.
GW. The influence of the dentin smear layer on adhesion: a self-etching
primer vs. a total-etch system. Dent Mater 2003;19:758-767.
28. Pashley DH, Ciucchi B, Sano H, Homer JA. Permeability of dentin to adhesive agents. Quintessence Int 1993;24:618-631.
29. Pashley DH, Tao L, Boyd L, King GE, Horner JA. Scanning electron microscopy of the substructure of smear layers in human dentine. Arch Oral
Biol 1988;33:265-270.
30. Pashley DH, Tay FR. Aggressiveness of contemporary self-etching adhesives. Par t II: etching effects on unground enamel. Dent Mater
2001;17:430-444.
31. Perdigo J. Dentin bonding as function of dentin structure. Dent Clin North
Am 2002;46:1-25.
32. Perdigo J, Geraldeli S. Bonding characteristics of self-etching adhesives
to intact vs. prepared enamel. J Esthet Restor Dent 2003;15:32-42.
33. Perdigo J, Geraldeli S, Carmo ARP, Dutra HR. In vivo influence of residual
moisture on microtensile bond strengths of one-bottle adhesives. J Esthet
Restor Dent 2002;14:31-38.
34. Perdigo J, Gomes G, Duarte Jr S, Lopes MM. Enamel bond strengths of
pairs of adhesives from the same manufacturer. Oper Dent 2005;30:492499.
35. Pereira PN, Okuda M, Sano H, Yoshikawa T, Burrow MF, Tagami J. Effect of
intrinsic wetness and regional difference on dentin bond strength. Dent
Mater 1999;15:46-53.
36. Ritter AV, Heymann H, Pereira P, Sturdevant J, Swift EJ Wilder A. Clinical
evaluation of an all-in-one self-etching dental adhesive [abstract 2568]. J
Dent Res 2005;84 (special issue A).
37. Sensi LG, Lopes GC, Monteiro S Jr, Baratieri LN, Vieira LC. Dentin bond
strength of self-etching primers/adhesives. Oper Dent 2005;30:63-68.
38. Sderholm K-JM, Guelmann M, Bimstein E. Shear bond strength of one
4th and two 7th generation bonding agents when used by operators with
different bonding experience. J Adhes Dent 2005;7:57-64.
39. Spreafico D, Semeraro S, Mezzanzanica D, Re D, Gagliani M, Tanaka T,
Sano H, Sidhu SK. The effect of the air-blowing step on the technique sensitivity of four different adhesive systems. J Dent 2006;34:237244.
40. Suzuki T, Hasegawa M, Maseki T, Kimishima T, Nara Y, Dogon IL. Characteristics in adhesion of self-etching adhesive systems after combination
stress [abstract 1315]. J Dent Res 2006;85(special issue A).
41. Swift EJ, Perdigo J, Heymann HO. Bonding to enamel and dentin: A brief
story and state of the art, 1995. Quintessence Int 1995;26:95-110.
42. Tay FR, King NM, Chan KM, Pashley DH. How can nanoleakage occur in
self-etching adhesive systems that demineralize and infiltrate simultaneously? J Adhes Dent 2002;4:255-269.
43. Tay FR, Kwong S-M, Itthagarun A, King NM, Yip H-K, Moulding KM, Pashley
DH. Bonding of a self-etching primer to non-carious cervical sclerotic
dentin: Interfacial ultrastructure and microtensile bond strength evaluation. J Adhes Dent 2000;2:9-28.

Qu

so present in SE, SE resulted in bond strengths to unground

enamel significantly lower than those of S3 (16.8 MPa vs
24.6 MPa, respectively). The difference between these materials may lie in the second chemical attribute claimed by
the manufacturer the molecular dispersion technology
which maintains the homogeneity of S3 adhesive24 and prevents the phase separation that occurs with acetone-based
all-in-one adhesives.48

by
ht

opyrig

C
All
eR
ech
te

e ss e n z

The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry

Perdigo et al

Vol 8, No 6, 2006

373

nt

Clinical relevance: Mild all-in-one adhesives are not recommended for rountine clinical use.

Qu

44. Tay FR, Lai CN, Chersoni S, Pashley DH, Mak YF, Suppa P, Prati C, King NM.
Osmotic blistering in enamel bonded with one-step self-etch adhesives. J
Dent Res 2004;83:290-295.
45. Tay FR, Pashley DH. Aggressiveness of contemporary self-etching systems.
I: Depth of penetration beyond smear layers. Dent Mater 2001;17:296308.
46. Tay FR, Pashley DH, King NM, Carvalho RM, Tsai J, Lai SC, Marquezini L Jr.
Aggressiveness of self-etch adhesives on unground enamel. Oper Dent
2004;29:309-316.
47. Tay FR, Pashley DH, Suh BI, Carvalho RM, Itthagaruna A. Single-step adhesives are permeable membranes. J Dent 2002;30:371-382.
48. Van Landuyt K, De Munck J, Snauwaert J, Coutinho E, Poitevin A, Yoshida
Y, Inove S, Peumans M, Suzuki K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B.
Monomer-solvent phase separation in contemporary one-step self-etch adhesives. J Dent Res 2005;84:183-188.
49. Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, Van
Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper
Dent 2003;28:215-235.
50. Yoshida Y, Nagakane K, Fukuda R, Nakayama Y, Okazaki M, Shintani H,
Inoue S, Tagawa Y, Suzuki K, De Munck J, Van Meerbeek B. Comparative
study on adhesive performance of functional monomers. J Dent Res
2004;83:454-458.

by
ht

opyrig

C
All
eR
ech
te

vo
rbe
ha
lte
n

e ss e n z