Elsevier

Dental Materials

Volume 27, Issue 1, January 2011, Pages 17-28
Dental Materials

State of the art of self-etch adhesives

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2010.10.023Get rights and content

Abstract

This paper reflects on the state of the art of self-etch adhesives anno 2010. After presenting the general characteristics of self-etch adhesives, the major shortcomings of the most simple-to-use one-step (self-etch) adhesives are addressed. Special attention is devoted to the AD-concept and the benefit of chemical interfacial interaction with regard to bond durability. Finally, issues like the potential interference of surface smear and the more challenging bond to enamel for ‘mild’ self-etch adhesives are discussed.

Introduction

Adhesive technology has evolved rapidly since it was introduced more than fifty years ago. The main challenge for dental adhesives is to provide an equally effective bond to two hard tissues of different nature. Bonding to enamel has been proven to be durable. Bonding to dentin is far more intricate and can apparently only be achieved when more complicated and time-consuming application procedures are followed. Consequently, today's adhesives are often regarded as technique-sensitive with the smallest error in the clinical application procedure being penalized either by rapid de-bonding or early marginal degradation. As a consequence, the demand for simpler, more user-friendly and less technique-sensitive adhesives remains high, urging manufacturers into developing new adhesives at a rapid pace.

Today's adhesives either follow an ‘etch-and-rinse’ or a ‘self-etch’ (or ‘etch-and-dry’) approach, which differ significantly in the manner they deal with tooth tissue. Nevertheless, it should be stated that both approaches have performed successfully in laboratory as well as clinical research, while obviously there also exists a high product-dependency. Following the previous presentation (and paper) by David Pashley on ‘The state of the art of etch-and-rinse adhesives’, the main objective of this presentation (and paper) is to present the latest developments with regard to the self-etch approach.

Section snippets

General characteristics of self-etch adhesives

Different from etch-and-rinse adhesives, self-etch adhesives do not require a separate etching step, as they contain acidic monomers that simultaneously ‘condition’ and ‘prime’ the dental substrate. Consequently, this approach has been claimed to be user-friendlier (shorter application time, less steps) and less technique-sensitive (no wet-bonding, simple drying), thereby resulting in a reliable clinical performance [1], [2], [3], [4], though this appeared very product-dependent. Another

Major shortcomings of one-step adhesives

The latest generation of most simple-to-use one-step adhesives are intricate mixes of hydrophilic and hydrophobic components. These ‘difficult’ mixtures should so far be considered as ‘compromise’ materials that have consequently been documented with several shortcomings (Fig. 2) [15], [16], [17]. Generally, a reduced ‘immediate’ bond strength is recorded in comparison to that measured for multi-step adhesives [15], [18]. In addition, any kind of ‘aging’ demonstrates a lower long-term bonding

The ‘AD-concept’ revisited as basis of durable bonding

The fundamental mechanism of bonding to enamel and dentin is essentially based on an exchange process, in which minerals removed from the dental hard tissues are replaced by resin monomers that upon polymerization become micro-mechanically interlocked in the created porosities [27]. This process, which is called ‘hybridization’ on dentin, involves infiltration and subsequent in situ polymerization of resin within the created surface porosities, and thus is a process primarily based upon

Avoid ‘strong’ self-etch adhesives

‘Strong’ self-etch adhesives present rather deep demineralisation effects at both enamel and dentin (Fig. 1c). The interfacial ultra-structure produced by these adhesives resembles that of etch-and-rinse systems, but differs for the fact that the dissolved calcium phosphates are not rinsed away. These embedded calcium phosphates are expected to be very unstable in an aqueous environment, thereby seriously weakening the interfacial integrity. Laboratory as well as clinical data have undeniably

Importance of keeping hydroxyapatite at the interface to protect collagen and generate chemical interaction receptiveness

Indeed, ‘mild’ self-etch adhesives demineralise dentin only partially, leaving a substantial amount of HAp-crystals around the collagen fibrils (Fig. 1b). Dentinal collagen exposed by an etch-and-rinse procedure has been documented to be highly vulnerable to hydrolytic and enzymatic degradation processes [38], [39], [40]. Smart biomimetic remineralisation procedures have been developed by Tay and Pashley [41], [42], [43], [44] to ‘repair’ the natural HAp-protection of collagen. However, the

Importance of the smear layer on dentin

It is well known that during cavity preparation using rotary instruments, the surface to bond to will be covered by a smear layer [57], [58]. Depending on the preparation technique, this smear layer varies significantly in size and structure. Unfortunately, the smear layer is not attached firmly to the tooth surface, and self-etch adhesives should be able to dissolve it to obtain a satisfactory bond to the underlying tooth surface [59].

There are indications that the bonding effectiveness of

Self-etching enamel

At enamel, an etch-and-rinse approach using phosphoric acid remains the choice of preference, since it not only guarantees the most durable bond to enamel, but also seals and thus protects the more vulnerable bond to dentin against degradation [48], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67]. As mentioned above, while ‘strong’ self-etch adhesives generally perform not that unfavorably at enamel, bonding of ‘mild’ self-etch adhesives to enamel (and certainly to unground, aprismatic enamel) remains so far

Conclusion

Further optimization of the self-etch approach is achievable by synthesis of functional monomers tailored to exhibit good chemical bonding potential following a mild self-etch approach. This approach appears to guarantee the most durable bonding performance at dentin provided that it deals adequately with the debris smeared across the surface by bur. Micro-mechanical interlocking is still the best strategy to bond to enamel. Selective phosphoric-acid etching of the enamel cavity margins is

References (71)

  • Y.K. Kim et al.

    Biomimetic remineralization as a progressive dehydration mechanism of collagen matrices—implications in the aging of resin–dentin bonds

    Acta Biomater

    (2010)
  • L.S. Gu et al.

    A chemical phosphorylation-inspired design for Type I collagen biomimetic remineralization

    Dent Mater

    (2010)
  • T. Ikeda et al.

    Effect of fracture strength of primer–adhesive mixture on bonding effectiveness

    Dent Mater

    (2005)
  • K. Yoshihara et al.

    Nano-controlled molecular interaction at adhesive interfaces for hard tissue reconstruction

    Acta Biomater

    (2010)
  • H. Koibuchi et al.

    Bonding to dentin with a self-etching primer: the effect of smear layers

    Dent Mater

    (2001)
  • R.B. Ermis et al.

    Bond strength of self-etch adhesives to dentin prepared with three different diamond burs

    Dent Mater

    (2008)
  • R.L. Erickson et al.

    Bond strength of self-etch adhesives to pre-etched enamel

    Dent Mater

    (2009)
  • K.L. Van Landuyt et al.

    A randomized controlled clinical trial of a HEMA-free all-in-one adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions at 1 year

    J Dent

    (2008)
  • N. Akimoto et al.

    10-year clinical evaluation of a self-etching adhesive system

    Oper Dent

    (2007)
  • J.W. van Dijken et al.

    Clinical long-term retention of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesive systems in non-carious cervical lesions. A 13 years evaluation

    Dent Mater

    (2007)
  • M. Unemori et al.

    Self-etching adhesives and postoperative sensitivity

    Am J Dent

    (2004)
  • F.R. Tay et al.

    How can nanoleakage occur in self-etching adhesive systems that demineralize and infiltrate simultaneously?

    J Adhes Dent

    (2002)
  • G.D. Pereira et al.

    How wet should dentin be? Comparison of methods to remove excess water during moist bonding

    J Adhes Dent

    (2001)
  • U. Salz et al.

    pKa value and buffering capacity of acidic monomers commonly used in self-etching primers

    J Adhes Dent

    (2006)
  • K.M. Chan et al.

    Bonding of mild self-etching primers/adhesives to dentin with thick smear layers

    Am J Dent

    (2003)
  • J. De Munck et al.

    One-day bonding effectiveness of new self-etch adhesives to bur-cut enamel and dentin

    Oper Dent

    (2005)
  • K. Koshiro et al.

    New concept of resin-dentin interfacial adhesion: the nanointeraction zone

    J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater

    (2006)
  • K.L. Van Landuyt et al.

    Are one-step adhesives easier to use and better performing? Multifactorial assessment of contemporary one-step self-etching adhesives

    J Adhes Dent

    (2009)
  • B. Van Meerbeek et al.

    Technique-sensitivity of contemporary adhesives

    Dent Mater J

    (2005)
  • Van Landuyt KL. Optimization of the chemical composition of dental adhesives: towards a simplified and durable,...
  • F.T. Sadek et al.

    Microtensile bond strength of current dentin adhesives measured immediately and 24 hours after application

    J Adhes Dent

    (2005)
  • P. Suppa et al.

    Nanoleakage within the hybrid layer: a correlative FEISEM/TEM investigation

    J Biomed Mater Res B: Appl Biomater

    (2005)
  • F.R. Tay et al.

    Two modes of nanoleakage expression in single-step adhesives

    J Dent Res

    (2002)
  • K.L. Van Landuyt et al.

    Origin of interfacial droplets with one-step adhesives

    J Dent Res

    (2007)
  • F.R. Tay et al.

    Single-step, self-etch adhesives behave as permeable membranes after polymerization. Part I. Bond strength and morphologic evidence

    Am J Dent

    (2004)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text