This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

To view a copy of this license, visit

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA.

RESEARCH

Effect of Clinically Relevant Smear Layers and pH of Universal

Adhesives on Dentin Bond Strength and Durability
Hüseyin Hatırlıa / Kaan Yerliyurtb

Purpose: To evaluate the effects of different smear layers on the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of a reference
two-step self-etch adhesive and two universal adhesives.
Materials and Methods: Mid-coronal dentin of 90 teeth was exposed and divided into three bur groups (coarse dia-
mond, fine diamond, or tungsten carbide). Each bur-prepared group was further divided into three adhesive groups:
Clearfil SE Bond (SE, Kuraray Noritake), Single Bond Universal (SB; 3M Oral Care), and G-Premio Bond (GP, GC).
After adhesive application, 4-mm-thick resin composites were built up. Half of the teeth in each bur-adhesive group
were used in immediate μTBS testing, and the others were tested after thermal aging (n = 5). Rectangular sticks
were prepared using a low-speed diamond saw. For each tooth, 6 central sticks were used in the μTBS test. Statis-
tical analysis was performed using three-way ANOVA and Bonferroni tests (α = 0.05).
Results: SE presented higher μTBS than universal adhesives and SB presented higher μTBS than GP regardless of
dentin surface preparation and thermal aging (p ˂ 0.05). For SE and SB, the tungsten carbide bur demonstrated
higher immediate and aged μTBS than did the extra-fine diamond bur (p ˂ 0.05). The immediate μTBS was similar
for GP with all bur types (p ˃ 0.05); the tungsten carbide and extra-fine diamond burs presented higher μTBS than
did the coarse-diamond bur after thermal aging (p ˂ 0.05).
Conclusion: Dentin surface preparation and adhesive type had significant effects on μTBS. The smear layer created
with an extra-fine diamond or tungsten carbide bur is favorable when mild and ultra-mild self-etch adhesives are used.
Keywords: smear layer, universal adhesive, self-etch adhesives, bond strength, microtensile bond strength.

J Adhes Dent 2022; 24: 87–94. Submitted for publication: 01.01.21; accepted for publication: 17.01.22
doi: 10.3290/j.jad.b2838121

U niversal adhesives have gained popularity among den-

tists owing to advantages such as user friendliness, low
technique sensitivity, faster application, and applicability in
They are further subdivided based on their acidity (strong,
semi-strong, mild, and ultra mild).15 In addition to the applica-
tion steps and pH values, differences in the application pro-
both etch-and-rinse or self-etch modes.1,10 This new genera- cedures, formulation, and ingredients influence the immediate
tion of adhesives has demonstrated favorable bonding per- r and long-term adhesive performance of self-etch adhesives.
formance regardless of the bonding procedure applied.13,29 During cavity preparation, a smear layer (SL) is produced
However, in addition to their long-term durability, there are on the enamel and dentin surfaces using rotary or hand in-
concerns regarding the bond strength of universal adhe- struments. The composition, thickness, and morphological
sives when bonding to different types of smear layers.20 features of SL differ with respect to the tooth substrate, ir- r
Based on the application steps, self-etch adhesives are rigation method, and instruments used.25 In addition, the
classified as either 1-step or 2-step self-etch adhesives.28 preparation of dentin surface with different burs or abra-
sives results in different SLs, qualitatively as well as quan-
titatively, which affects the bonding efficacy of the self-etch
adhesives.6 For tooth-surface standardization, specimen
a Assistant Professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, surfaces are commonly prepared using silicon carbide (SiC)
Tokat Gaziosmanpasa University, Tokat, Turkey. Conceptualization, data cura- papers in in-vitro studies, which are considered to be clini-
tion, methodology, formal analysis, wrote, reviewed and edited the manuscript.
cally irrelevant,20,23 or by using diamond burs.21 Yet in den-
b Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry,
Tokat Gaziosmanpasa University, Tokat, Turkey. Data curation, methodology, tal practice, mechanical dentin caries removal is performed
formal analysis, reviewed and edited the manuscript. using tungsten carbide burs. However, data on the bond
strength and hybrid layer characteristics of universal adhe-
Correspondence: Hüseyin Hatırlı, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty
of Dentistry, Tokat Gaziosmanpasa University, Tokat, 60030, Turkey. Tel: +90- sives – which are applied to dentin prepared using tungsten
356-212-4222-7020; e-mail: huseyinhatirli@gmail.com carbide burs – are not available to date.

doi: 10.3290/j.jad.b2838121 87
Hatırlı et al

Table 1 Adhesives, composition, and application procedures

Adhesive Classification Composition pH General application

(Manufacturer)

Clearfil SE Bond Two-step mild Primer: 10-MDP, HEMA, hydrophilic 2.0 Apply primer for 20 s.
(Kuraray Noritake; Tokyo, self-etch dimethacrylate, di-camphorquinone, (primer) Dry with mild air flow.
Japan) N,N-diethanol-p-toluine, water Apply bonding.
Bond: 10-MDP, bis-GMA, HEMA, hydrophobic Gently air dry.
dimethacrylate, di-camphorquinone, Light cure for 10 s.
N,N-diethanol-p-toluine, silanated colloidal
silica

G-Premio Bond Semi-strong 10-MDP, 4-META, 10-methacryoyloxydecyl 1.5 Apply using a microbrush.
(GC; Tokyo, Japan) self-etch dihydrogen thiophosphate, methacrylate Leave undisturbed for 10 s after
adic ester, distilled water, acetone, photo- application.
initiators, silica fine powder Dry thoroughly for 5 s with oil-free air
under maximum air pressure.
Light cure for 10 s.

Single Bond Universal Ultra-mild 10-MDP, HEMA, silane, dimethacrylate 2.7 Apply the adhesive to the entire
(3M Oral Care; St Paul, self-etch resins, VitrebondTM copolymer, filler, surface and rub it in for 20 s.
MN, USA) ethanol, water, initiators Gently air dry the adhesive for
approximately 5 s for the solvent to
evaporate.
Light cure for 10 s.

10-MDP: 10-methacryloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate; HEMA: 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate; bis-GMA: bisphenol A diglycidyl methacrylate; 4-META: 4-methacryloyloxyethyl
trimellitate anhydrate.

SL can be considered an obstacle to the infiltration of 20-KAEK-209). Ninety-three extracted human third molars that
self-etch adhesives and should be adequately dealt with.15 were free of caries, cracks, or fractures were used in this study.
The importance of the cavity preparation method has been All teeth were stored in an aqueous solution of 0.5% chlora-
highlighted in previous studies, owing to the fact that thicker mine-T at 4°C and were used within 6 months of extraction.
SL impairs the effectiveness of mild and ultra-mild self-etch Ninety teeth that were used for the μTBS test were em-
adhesives.22,28 Various in vitro studies have observed the bedded in a self-curing acrylic resin (Imicryl; Konya, Turkey).
effects of the types of SL on the bonding efficacy of self- Occlusal surfaces of the teeth were cut using a low-speed
etch adhesives to enamel and dentin.4,6,8,11,20,22,23 How- diamond saw (Microcut 125, Metkon; Bursa, Turkey) under
ever, there is no consensus on the effect of SL type on the continuous cooling with a water and cutting-fluid mixture
adhesive performance of self-etch adhesives. Two-step self- (Metcool II, Metkon) to expose the mid-coronal dentin. The
etch and strong or semi-strong 1-step self-etch adhesives dentin surfaces were examined for the presence of enamel
do not appear to be substantially influenced by the type of or exposure of the pulp. The teeth were randomly divided
SL.8,24 In contrast, for mild or ultra-mild 1-step self-etch ad- into three groups (n = 30) according to the following dentin
hesives, the effect of SL type depends on the formulation surface preparation procedures:
and pH of the adhesive. Previous studies have reported that y Group 1: A cylindrical coarse-grit diamond bur (107–
thicker SLs have a negative effect of on the bond 181 μm, 852 FG Meisinger, Hager & Meisinger; Neuss,
strength.8,22 In addition, the available knowledge on univer- r Germany) at high speed with copious water cooling.
sal adhesives with respect to this aspect is limited. y Group 2: First, the dentin surfaces were prepared as in
Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effects of group 1, followed by a cylindrical extra-fine grit diamond
clinically relevant SLs on the microtensile bond strength bur (10–36 μm, 852 FG Meisinger) at high speed with
(μTBS) of a reference 2-step self-etch adhesive and two dif- f copious water cooling.
ferent universal adhesives applied in self-etch mode. The y Group 3: A cylindrical 8-fluted tungsten carbide bur
null hypotheses tested were: 1) there is no effect of the (HM21R Meisinger) at low speed with the handpiece run-
type of adhesive, 2) no effect of different SLs created with ning at 10,000 rpm with copious water cooling.
different burs, and 3) there is no negative effect of thermal
aging on the μTBS of the tested adhesives. Five strokes were applied with light pressure using the
burs to create uniform dentin surfaces.21

MATERIALS AND METHODS Adhesive Procedure and Aging

Each bur group was further subdivided into three adhesive
Tooth Selection and Dentin Surface Preparation subgroups: a: Clearfil SE Bond (SE, Kuraray Noritake; Tokyo,
The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of Japan), b: Single Bond Universal (SB, 3M Oral Care; St Paul,
the Tokat Gaziosmanpasa University, Faculty of Medicine (No. MN, USA), and c: G-Premio Bond (GP, GC; Tokyo, Japan).

88 The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry

 Hatırlı et al

Table 2 Microtensile bond strengths (μTBS) ± SD in MPa to dentin

Clearfil SE Bond Single Bond Universal G-Premio Bond

Bur Immediate Aged Immediate Aged Immediate Aged

Coarse-grit diamond 52.3 ± 5.1A,a 52.1 ± 5.3A,a 42.8 ± 5.7A,b 41.0 ± 4.7A,b 29.55 ± 4.8c 28.0 ± 6.0A,c
Fine-grit diamond 54.1 ± 5.7A,a 54.7 ± 6.2AB,a 44.9 ± 8.1AB,b 42.7 ± 7.5A,b 29.1 ± 5.9c 33.9 ± 6.4B,c
8-fluted tungsten carbide 59.0 ± 1B,a 57.4 ± 11.8B,a 48.2 ± 10.9A,b 51.12 ± 12.02B,b 29.1 ± 4.6c 33.73 ± 9.1B,c
*The superscript lowercase letters indicate significant differences between burs (in rows); the superscript uppercase letters indicate significant differences between
adhesives (in columns) (p ˂ 0.05).

Table 3 Distribution of fracture modes (A/CC/CD/M)*

Clearfil SE Bond Single Bond Universal G-Premio Bond

Bur Immediate Aged Immediate Aged Immediate Aged

Coarse-grit diamond 15/3/2/10 14/0/5/11 20/4/1/5 21/0/1/8 25/2/0/3 26/0/0/4
Fine-grit diamond 14/5/4/7 13/4/2/11 21/0/2/7 18/2/6/4 22/1/1/6 25/0/2/3
8-fluted tungsten carbide 11/3/3/13 9/2/7/12 16/5/1/8 17/2/4/7 22/1/1/6 24/0/0/6
*A: adhesive failure; CC: cohesive failure in resin composite; CD: cohesive failure in dentin; M: mixed failure.

After surface preparation, adhesive procedures were per- r fixed onto a modified Geraldeli’s jig in a μTBS testing appa-
formed immediately. The material compositions and appli- ratus using cyanoacrylate glue. Subsequently, the speci-
cation steps suggested by the manufacturers are listed in mens were subjected to tensile force in a universal testing
Table 1. After adhesive application and polymerization, machine (Shimadzu; Kyoto, Japan) at a cross-head speed of
4-mm-thick resin composites (Filtek Z250; 3M Oral Care) 1 mm/min. The μTBS was calculated in MPa by dividing the
were built up on the bonded dentin surfaces in 2-mm incre- fracture force by the bonded area. The Academy of Dental
ments. Each layer was light cured using an LED light-curing Materials guidelines on the μTBS test protocol were strictly
unit (20 s, 1000 mW/cm2, Valo, Ultradent; South Jordan, followed during specimen preparation and testing.2
UT, USA). Dentin preparation, adhesive application, and
resin composite build-up procedures were all performed by Failure Mode Analysis
the same operator to ensure standardization. All the fractured specimen surfaces were examined stereomi-
After the application of resin composite buildups, the croscopically (Stemi C-2000, Zeiss; Oberkochen, Germany) to
specimens were kept in distilled water at 37°C for 24 h. determine the mode of failure (adhesive interfacial failure,
Half of the teeth in each bur-adhesive group (n = 5) under-
r cohesive failure in resin composite, cohesive failure in den-
went immediate μTBS testing. Before testing, the remaining tin, or mixed failure). Two representative samples of each
half were thermally aged in a thermocycler (SD Mechatronik experimental group with a μTBS close to the mean were
Thermocycler, SD Mechatronik; Westerham, Germany) for selected and subsequently imaged using field emission
25,000 cycles with 20 s of immersion at each temperature scanning electron microscopy (FE-SEM, Mira 3 XMU, Tescan;
(5°C and 55°C) and a 5-s transfer time between baths. Brno, Czech Republic).

μTBS Test FE-SEM Observation of Prepared Dentin Surfaces

Half of the teeth (n = 45) were used for the immediate μTBS Three teeth were used to observe the dentin surfaces pre-
test, while the other half were tested after thermal aging. pared with different burs. Mid-coronal dentin slices (2 mm
Each tooth was placed in a low-speed diamond saw (Micro- thick) were obtained from the teeth using a low-speed dia-
cut 125 Precision Cutter, Metkon) perpendicular to the bond- mond saw (Microcut 125 Precision Cutter, Metkon). Further,
ing surface and sectioned under continuous cooling with transversal grooves 1 mm deep were prepared with a high-
water and a cutting-fluid mixture (Metcool II, Metkon) to ob- speed cylindrical bur (Coarse, 852FG Meisinger) on the
tain rectangular adhesive-dentin sticks (cross-sectional back side of the smear-layer surface. Thereafter, the dentin
area: 1±0.1 mm2). For each tooth, six central sticks were slices were randomly allocated to three bur groups. The SL
randomly selected for use in the μTBS test; thus, a total of was made with burs in the same way described for speci-
30 rectangular sticks were tested for each bur-adhesive men preparation. Afterwards, specimens were prepared for
subgroup. The exact dimensions of the adhesive-dentin FE-SEM according to the protocol described by Perdigao et
sticks were measured using calipers. The specimens were al18 as follows. The specimens were fixed in 2.5 glutaralde-

doi: 10.3290/j.jad.b2838121 89
Hatırlı et al

Fig 1 Representative FE-SEM images of

Coarse diamond bur Fine diamond bur 8-fluted tungsten carbide bur failure mode in groups at 2000X (inserts:
150X) original magnification. SE bonded to
a b c
coarse diamond-prepared dentin (a); SE
bonded to fine diamond-prepared dentin
(b); SE bonded to coarse 8-fluted tungsten
Clearfil SE Bond

carbide-prepared dentin (c); SU bonded to

coarse diamond-prepared dentin (d); SU
bonded to fine diamond-prepared dentin
(e); SU bonded to coarse 8-fluted tungsten
carbide-prepared dentin (f); GP bonded to
coarse diamond-prepared dentin (g); GP
bonded to fine diamond-prepared dentin
(h); GP bonded to coarse 8-fluted tungsten
d e f carbide prepared dentin (i).
Single Bond Universal

g h i
G Premio Bond

hyde for 24 h and dehydrated in increasing concentrations Statistical Analysis

of ethanol (50%, 60%, 70%, 85%, 95%, and 100%) twice per Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 19
concentration, 15 min each time. Then the specimens were (IBM SPSS; Armonk, NY, USA). The μTBS data were ana-
chemically dried with hexamethyldisilazane for 10 min and lyzed using three-way ANOVA to determine the influence of
allowed to air dry for 10 min. Finally, the dentin slices were thermal aging, dentin surface preparation, and adhesive
divided into halves through grooves with a hammer and type. The Bonferroni test was used for pair-wise post-hoc
blade. The specimens were sputter-coated with Pt-Pd and comparisons between groups (_ = 0.05).
observed using FE-SEM (Mira 3 XMU, Tescan).

FE-SEM Observation of Interfacial Structure RESULTS

The morphology of the adhesive interfaces was observed
using five central rectangular sticks randomly selected from Microtensile Bond Strength
each specimen of each group. The rectangular sticks were No pre-test failures occurred in the present study. The mean
fixed to epoxy resin molds to expose the upper surfaces. μTBS (±SD) values are presented in Table 2. Three-way
Specimens were prepared for SEM observation according to ANOVA revealed that adhesive (F = 438.951, p ˂ .001) and
the protocol described by Ting et al.26 The specimens were dentin surface preparation (F = 22.173, p ˂ .001) had sig-
ground with 600-, 800-, and 1000-grit SiC papers (Buehler; nificant effects on μTBS, whereas the effect of thermal aging
Lake Bluff, IL, USA) and diamond polishing paste (Ultradent). (F = 0.773, p = 0.381) was not significant. Only a slightly
Specimen surfaces were treated with 1 M 5% HCl for 30 s significant interaction was observed between the adhesive
followed by 5% NaOCl for 5 min and rinsed with distilled and dentin surface preparation (F = 2.571, p = 0.037).
water. After drying, the specimens were sputter-coated with The reference two-step self-etch adhesive, SE, exhibited
Pt-Pd and observed using FE-SEM (Mira 3 XMU, Tescan). higher μTBS than did the universal adhesives SB and GP

90 The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry

 Hatırlı et al

Fig 2 Representative FE-SEM images of

dentin smear layers. A longitudinal section a c e
of the dentin surface prepared by a coarse
diamond bur at original magnifications of
(a) 3000X and (b) 10,000X, fine diamond
bur at magnifications of (c) 3000X and b d f
(d) 10,000X, and 8-fluted tungsten carbide
bur at magnifications of (e) 3000X and
(f) 10,000X. Dentin surface prepared by
a coarse diamond bur at original magnifica-
tions of (g) 500X and (h) 2000X, fine
diamond bur at magnifications of (i) 500X
and (j) 2000X, and an 8-fluted tungsten-
carbide bur at original magnifications of g i k
(k) 500X and (l) 2000X.

h j l

(p ˂ 0.05), of which SB had higher μTBS than did GP, irrespec- with the coarse diamond displayed a rough surface and ir- r
tive of dentin surface preparation and thermal aging regular grooves. The grooves were shorter and narrower when
(p ˂ 0.05). For each adhesive, the immediate μTBSs of the the extra-fine diamond bur was used. The dentin surface pre-
groups were similar to that of post-aging μTBS, except for pared with the tungsten-carbide bur exhibited wide, uniform
GP applied on extra-fine bur- and tungsten-carbide-prepared grooves. FE-SEM images revealed that SL covered the dentin
dentin surfaces, which presented higher μTBS values after surfaces and smear plugs occluded the orifices of dentin tu-
thermal aging (p ˂ 0.05). bules. Representative FE-SEM images of adhesive-dentin
For SE and SB, tungsten carbide bur groups exhibited interfacial structures of each group are shown in Fig 3. For
both higher immediate and aged μTBS values than did the SE, long resin tags inside the dentin tubules were observed
extra-fine grit diamond bur (p ˂ 0.05). The difference be- using FE-SEM. However, for SB and GP, the resin tags were
tween the coarse and extra-fine burs was not significant few and short. In addition, GP presented 1- to 5-μm round
(p ˃ 0.05). In addition, the immediate μTBSs were similar gaps, whereas SB presented smaller gaps of up to 1 μm.
for GP irrespective of the burs used (p ˃ 0.05). However, for For GP, in some of the resin composite-adhesive interfaces,
GP, the 8-fluted tungsten carbide bur and extra-fine diamond line-shaped separations were observed (Figs 1 and 3).
bur groups presented higher μTBSs than did the coarse-grit
diamond bur group after thermal aging (p ˂ 0.05).
DISCUSSION
Fracture Mode Analysis
The number of fracture modes for each group is listed in This study assessed the effects of clinically relevant SLs,
Table 3. The most frequent fracture modes were adhesive created using different burs, on the immediate and ther-
(333/540) and mixed (131/540). A clear tendency for co- mally aged μTBS of a reference 2-step self-etch, a semi-
hesive failures was observed in the groups that presented strong, and an ultra-mild universal adhesive. The results of
higher μTBSs. Cohesive failures mostly occurred in the SE this study revealed that dentin surface preparation and ad-
(40/120) and SB (28/120) groups. The main failure mode hesive type had significant effects on μTBS. Therefore, the
was adhesive for GP (93/120). When adhesive failures null hypothesis that there is no effect of 1) type of adhesive
were examined by FE-SEM at 2500X magnification, numer- and 2) SLs created with different burs was rejected.
ous pores on the entire surface were observed for GP The SL can be considered a physical barrier that consid-
(Fig 1). erably influences bonding performance,4,8 owing to the divi-
sion of the hybrid layer into an upper, resin-infiltrated demin-
FE-SEM of Prepared Dentin Surface and Interfacial eralized smear layer, and a lower, true hybrid layer.12 In
Structure addition, SL characteristics are directly affected by the type
Representative FE-SEM images of bur-prepared dentin sur-r of rotary instrument, cutting speed, and grit size of the burs
faces are presented in Fig 2. The dentin surface prepared used (Fig 2).12 To create a clinically relevant SL for bond

doi: 10.3290/j.jad.b2838121 91
Hatırlı et al

Fig 3 Representative FE-SEM images of

Coarse diamond bur Fine diamond bur 8-fluted tungsten carbide bur adhesive-dentin interfaces of the tested
adhesives, according to the bur type dentin
a c e
surface preparation at an original magnifi-
cation of 5000X (inserts 2500X). SE
bonded to coarse diamond-prepared dentin
Clearfil SE Bond

(a); SE bonded to fine diamond-prepared

dentin (c); SE bonded to coarse 8-fluted
tungsten carbide-prepared dentin (e); SU
b d f bonded to coarse diamond-prepared dentin
(g); SU bonded to fine diamond-prepared
dentin (i); SU bonded to coarse 8-fluted
tungsten carbide-prepared dentin (k); GP
bonded to coarse diamond-prepared dentin
g i k (m); GP bonded to fine diamond-prepared
dentin (o); GP bonded to coarse 8-fluted
Single Bond Universal

tungsten carbide-prepared dentin (r). RC:

resin composite; A: adhesive layer; D: den-
tin; white arrows indicate voids; * cracks
between adhesive and resin composite.
h j l

m o r
G Premio Bond

n p s

strength tests, 8-fluted carbide and medium-grit diamond monomers might not penetrate uniformly. However, the im-
burs for direct bonding and fine-grit diamond burs for indi- mediate μTBS of the semi-strong universal adhesive (GP)
rect bonding are recommended.2 When using diamond burs was not affected by the type of SL. This might be explained
at high speeds, a SL with higher density is created than by the strong acidity of the adhesive.
with SiC papers,16,22 and the SL thickness increases with The pH values of self-etch adhesives can significantly
the increasing coarseness of the diamond bur.21 Dias et al6 influence the dissolution of the SL and etching of the den-
observed that diamond burs at high speed produce a tin surface.24 Universal adhesives differ from each other in
rougher surface and that the use of carbide burs can en- acidity; the bond strength to dentin along with the bond
hance bond strength. However, the effects of diamond and stability have been shown to depend on acidity.5 Therefore,
carbide burs on the bond strength and durability of univer- r this study tested universal adhesives with quite different
sal adhesives have not been elucidated. pH values: a semi-strong (GP; pH: 1.5) and an ultra-mild
One of the major concerns with self-etch adhesives is (SB; pH: 2.7) adhesive, as well as the reference mild two-
the potential interference of the SL created by the bur dur-r step self-etch adhesive (SE), according to the classification
ing cavity preparation. The results of present study revealed by Van Meerbeek et al.15 The higher pH of the ultra-mild
that the reference mild 2-step self-etch adhesive (SE) and universal adhesive (SB) would be expected to result in re-
the ultra-mild universal adhesive (SB) yielded significantly duced etching ability, be less able to etch different SL
higher μTBS on SL created with a tungsten carbide bur than types, and reduce demineralization of the dentin surface,
on SL created with a coarse-grit diamond bur (p ˂ .05). which is beneficial for micromechanical interlocking. How-
Saikaew et al20 stated that the acidic monomers of self- ever, consistent with the findings of previous studies, SB
etch adhesives are buffered and their acidity is decreased showed a higher μTBS than the other universal adhesive,
by the SL. They also confirmed that in the thicker and more GP, for all SL types.24 This might be explained by the differ-
compact SL created with regular-grit diamond bur, acidic ences in ingredients, such as solvent and functional mono-

92 The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry

 Hatırlı et al

mer, in addition to the application method. SB contains CONCLUSION

2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) and is an ethanol-wa-
ter based adhesive, whereas GP does not contain HEMA The type of burs used for dentin surface preparation and
and is an acetone-water based adhesive. HEMA is a hydro- adhesive had significant effects on the μTBS of 2-step self-
philic monomer contained in many universal adhesives due etch and universal adhesives applied in self-etch mode.
to it being a good diffusing agent and acting as a co-sol- Thermal aging did not negatively affect the bond strength of
vent.15 Despite being highly volatile, acetone does not ad- the adhesives. The SL created with the tungsten-carbide
equately promote water evaporation, because it does not bur vs the coarse diamond bur is advantageous when mild
form an azeotrope with water.4,30 Numerous round voids and ultra-mild self-etch adhesives are used. Finishing prep-
and line-shaped separations at composite-adhesive inter- r aration with the tungsten carbide bur instead of the coarse
faces were observed in the FE-SEM images (Figs 1 and 2) diamond bur for direct bonding and the extra-fine diamond
of the GP groups, which can be attributed to the phase bur for indirect bonding can be recommended.
separation that occurred due to the absence of HEMA.27
These findings might be the reason for existence of mainly
adhesive failures along with the lower bond strength of GP ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
groups.4 In addition, according to the manufacturer’s in- The authors would like to thank Dr. Osman Demir for assistance
structions, GP was applied for 10 s with an inactive appli- with the statistical analysis.
cation technique, whereas SB was rubbed in for 20 s. Yoshi-
hara et al 34 stated that rubbing action promotes
dissolution of SL and effective solvent evaporation. More- REFERENCES
over, all the adhesives tested in the present study contain
1. Ahmed MH, Yoshihara K, Mercelis B, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Van
different concentrations of 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydro- Meerbeek B. Quick bonding using a universal adhesive. Clin Oral Investig
gen phosphate (10-MDP) as a functional monomer. 10- 2019;24:2837-2851:1–15.
MDP has the ability to chemically interact with hydroxyapa- 2. Armstrong S, Breschi L, Özcan M, Pfefferkorn F, Ferrari M, Van Meerbeek
B. Academy of Dental Materials guidance on in vitro testing of dental
tite, and a longer application time with active application composite bonding effectiveness to dentin/enamel using micro-tensile
through rubbing might foster intimate contact of functional bond strength (μTBS) approach. Dent Mater 2017;33:133–143.
3. Carrilho E, Cardoso M, Marques Ferreira M, Marto CM, Paula A, Coelho
monomers with hydroxyapatite crystals.4,34 In other words, AS. 10-MDP based dental adhesives: Adhesive interface characterization
for GP, a shorter application time might be insufficient for and adhesive stability – A systematic review. Mater 2019;12:790.
surface decalcification and adhesive penetration into den- 4. Chowdhury A, Saikaew P, Alam A, Sun J, Carvalho RM, Sano H. Effects of
double application of contemporary self-etch adhesives on their bonding
tin.20 In agreement with the results of previous studies, SE performance to dentin with clinically relevant smear layers. J Adhes Dent
presented higher μTBS than both of the universal adhe- 2019;21:59–66.
sives, regardless of the aging procedure and smear layers 5. Cuevas-Suarez CE, de Oliveira da Rosa WL, Lund RG, da Silva AF, Piva E.
Bonding performance of universal adhesives: an updated systematic re-
created with different burs.9,24 The separate application of view and meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent 2019;21:7–26.
primer and bond in two-step self-etch adhesives can create 6. Dias WR, Pereira PN, Swift Jr EJ. Effect of bur type on microtensile bond
a more hydrophobic adhesive layer with enhanced mechan- strengths of self-etching systems to human dentin. J Adhes Dent 2004;
6:195–203.
ical properties.14,30 This may explain the significantly 7. Donmez N, Siso SH, Usumez A, Bayrak I. Effect of thermal cycling on mi-
higher μTBSs of the SE groups. cro-tensile bond strength of composite restorations bonded with multi-
Long-term water storage or thermocycling are common mode adhesive. J Adhes Sci Technol 2015;29:731–739.
8. Ermis RB, De Munck J, Cardoso MV, Coutinho E, Van Landuyt KL, Poitevin
aging methods applied prior to bond strength testing of ad- A, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B . Bond strength of self-etch adhesives
hesives. However, a comparison of bond strength data ob- to dentin prepared with three different diamond burs. Dent Mater
tained after aging vs immediate bond strength as a refer- r 2008;24:978–985.
9. Fabião AdM, Fronza BM, André CB, Cavalli V, Giannini M. Microtensile den-
ence is required. Therefore, immediate and thermally aged tin bond strength and interface morphology of different self-etching adhe-
μTBS data were assessed in this study. Although the sives and universal adhesives applied in self-etching mode. J Adhes Sci
stresses that occurred during thermocycling were expected Technol 2021;35:723–732.
10. Hanabusa M, Mine A, Kuboki T, Momoi Y, Van Ende A, Van Meerbeek B,
to decrease the bond strength due to the formation of gaps De Munck J. Bonding effectiveness of a new ‘multi-mode’adhesive to
and crack propagation through the adhesive interface,7,17 enamel and dentine. J Dent 2012;40:475–484.
consistent with the findings of previous studies, thermal 11. Hosoya Y, Shinkawa H, Suefiji C, Nozaka K, García-Godoy F. Effects of diamond
bur particle size on dentin bond strength. Am J Dent 2004;17:359–364.
aging did not significantly decrease the bond strength of the 12. Kenshima S, Reis A, Uceda-Gomez N, Tancredo LdLF, Nogueira FN, Logu-
adhesives.3,19 Therefore, the third null hypothesis that ercio AD. Effect of smear layer thickness and pH of self-etching adhesive
there is no negative effect of thermal aging on the bond systems on the bond strength and gap formation to dentin. J Adhes Dent
2005;7:117–126.
strength of the tested adhesives cannot be rejected. All the 13. Marchesi G, Frassetto A, Mazzoni A, Apolonio F, Diolosa M, Cadenaro M, Di
adhesives tested in the present study contain different con- Lenarda R, Pashley DH, Tay F, Breschi L. Adhesive performance of a multi-
centrations of 10-MDP monomer. 10-MDP can facilitate mode adhesive system: 1-year in vitro study. J Dent 2014;42:603–612.
14. Marchesi G, Frassetto A, Visintini E, Diolosà M, Turco G, Salgarello S, Di
chemical bonding with hydroxyapatite and the formation of Lenarda R, Cadenaro M, Breschi L. Influence of ageing on self-etch adhe-
nanolayering at the bonding interface.32,33 The creation of sives: one-step vs. two-step systems. Eur J Oral Sci 2013;121:43–49.
a durable and mechanically stable adhesive interface with 15. Meerbeek BV, Yoshihara K, Van Landuyt K, Yoshida Y, Peumans M. From
Buonocore’s pioneering acid-etch technique to self-adhering restoratives.
10-MDP monomer may explain the post-thermocycling re- a status perspective of rapidly advancing dental adhesive technology. J
sults obtained in this study. Adhes Dent 2020;22:7–34.

doi: 10.3290/j.jad.b2838121 93
Hatırlı et al

16. Oliveira SS, Pugach MK, Hilton JF, Watanabe LG, Marshall SJ, Marshall Jr 28. Van Meerbeek B, Yoshihara K, Yoshida Y, Mine A, De Munck J, Van Landuyt
GW. The influence of the dentin smear layer on adhesion: a self-etching K. State of the art of self-etch adhesives. Dent Mater 2011;27:17–28.
primer vs. a total-etch system. Dent Mater 2003;19:758–767. 29. Wagner A, Wendler M, Petschelt A, Belli R, Lohbauer U. Bonding perfor- r
17. Oz FD, Kutuk ZB, Balkan E, Ozturk C, Gurgan S. Bond strength of three mance of universal adhesives in different etching modes. J Dent 2014;
different universal adhesives after different thermal cycling protocols. J 42:800–807.
Adhes Sci Technol 2018;32:2741–2752. 30. Yamada M, Miyazaki M, Moore BK. Influence of interchanging adhesive
18. Perdigao J, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B, Vanherle G, Lopes A. Field resins and self-etching primers on the mechanical properties of adhesive
emission SEM comparison of four postfixation drying techniques for resins. Oper Dent 2004;29:532–537.
human dentin. J Biomed Mater Res 1995;29:1111–1120. 31. Yiu CK, Pashley EL, Hiraishi N, King NM, Goracci C, Ferrari M, Carvalho
19. Sai K, Shimamura Y, Takamizawa T, Tsujimoto A, Imai A, Endo H, Bark- RM, Pashley DH, Tay FR. Solvent and water retention in dental adhesive
meier WW, Latta MA, Miyazaki M. Influence of degradation conditions on blends after evaporation. Biomaterials 2005;26:6863–6872.
dentin bonding durability of three universal adhesives. J Dent 2016;54: 32. Yoshida Y, Yoshihara K, Nagaoka N, Hayakawa S, Torii Y, Ogawa T, Osaka
56–61. A, Van Meerbeek B. Self-assembled nano-layering at the adhesive inter- r
20. Saikaew P, Chowdhury AA, Fukuyama M, Kakuda S, Carvalho RM, Sano H. face. J Dent Res 2012;91:376–381.
The effect of dentine surface preparation and reduced application time of 33. Yoshihara K, Nagaoka N, Nakamura A, Hara T, Yoshida Y, Van Meerbeek B.
adhesive on bonding strength. J Dent 2016;47:63–70. Nano-layering adds strength to the adhesive interface. J Dent Res 2021;
21. Saikaew P, Matsumoto M, Chowdhury A, Carvalho R, Sano H. Does short- 100:515–521.
ened application time affect long-term bond strength of universal adhe- 34. Yoshihara K, Yoshida Y, Hayakawa S, Nagaoka N, Irie M, Ogawa T, Van
sives to dentin? Oper Dent 2018;43:549–558. Landuyt KL, Osaka A, Suzuki K, Minagi S, Van Meerbeek B. Nanolayering
22. Saikaew P, Senawongse P, AFM A, Sano H, Harnirattisai C. Effect of smear of phosphoric acid ester monomer on enamel and dentin. Acta Biomater
layer and surface roughness on resin-dentin bond strength of self-etching 2011;7:3187–3195.
adhesives. Dent Mater J 2018;37:973–980.
23. Sattabanasuk V, Vachiramon V, Qian F, Armstrong SR. Resin–dentin bond
strength as related to different surface preparation methods. J Dent
2007; 35:467–475.
24. Takamizawa T, Barkmeier WW, Sai K, Tsujimoto A, Imai A, Erickson RL,
Latta MA, Miyazaki M. Influence of different smear layers on bond durabil-
ity of self-etch adhesives. Dent Mater 2018;34:246–259.
25. Tao L PD, Boyd L. Effect of different types of smear layers on dentin and Clinical relevance: Smear layer type, pH, and formula-
enamel shear bond strengths. Dent Mater 1988;4:208–216.
tion of the adhesive can influence the dentin bond
26. Ting S, Chowdhury AA, Pan F, Fu J, Sun J, Kakuda S, Hoshika S, Matsuda
Y, Ikeda T, Nakaoki Y, Abe S, Yoshida Y, Sano H. Effect of remaining dentin strength of self-etch adhesives. Finishing preparation
thickness on microtensile bond strength of current adhesive systems. with tungsten carbide burs instead of coarse diamond
Dent Mater J 2015;34:181–188.
burs for direct bonding, and extra-fine diamond burs for
27. Van Landuyt K, Snauwaert J, De Munck J, Coutinho E, Poitevin A, Yoshida
Y, Suzuki K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Origin of interfacial droplets indirect bonding, can be recommended.
with one-step adhesives. J Dent Res 2007;86:739–744.

94 The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry