Article Data

  • Views 847
  • Dowloads 134

Original Research

Open Access

Does Bonding Approach Influence the Bond Strength of Universal Adhesive to Dentin of Primary Teeth?

  • Tathiane Larissa Lenzi1,*,
  • Fabio Zovico Maxnuck Soares1
  • Rachel de Oliveira Rocha1

1Federal University of Santa Maria, Brazil

DOI: 10.17796/1053-4628-41.3.214 Vol.41,Issue 3,May 2017 pp.214-218

Published: 01 May 2017

*Corresponding Author(s): Tathiane Larissa Lenzi E-mail:


Objective: To evaluate the effect of bonding strategy on microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of a new universal adhesive system to primary tooth dentin. Study design: Flat dentin surfaces from 25 primary molars were assigned to 5 groups according to the adhesive and bonding approach: Adper Single Bond 2 (two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive) and Clearfil SE Bond (two-step self-etch system), as controls; Scotchbond Universal Adhesive–self-etch, dry or wet-bonding etch-and-rinse strategies. Composite buildups were constructed and the teeth were sectioned to obtain bonded sticks (0.8 mm2) to be tested under tension at 1mm/min. The μTBS means were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey's tests (α = 0.05). Failure mode was evaluated using a stereomicroscope (400×). Results: Universal adhesive applied following both dry and wet-bonding etch-and-rinse strategies showed similar bond strength compared with control adhesive systems. Self-etch approach resulted in the lowest μTBS values. For all groups, adhesive/mixed failure prevailed. The percentage of premature debonded specimens was higher when the universal adhesive was used as self-etch mode. Conclusion: The universal adhesive does not share the same versatility of being used in the etch-and-rinse and self-etch approaches; however, the use of the new adhesive following either wet or dry-bonding may be a suitable option as alternative to two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive protocol.


dentin; microtensile; etch-and-rinse; self-etch; universal simplified adhesive system

Cite and Share

Tathiane Larissa Lenzi,Fabio Zovico Maxnuck Soares,Rachel de Oliveira Rocha. Does Bonding Approach Influence the Bond Strength of Universal Adhesive to Dentin of Primary Teeth?. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2017. 41(3);214-218.


1. Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, et al. Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent;28(3):215-35. 2003.

2. Nakajima M, Kanemura N, Pereira PN, Tagami J, Pashley DH. Comparative microtensile bond strength and SEM analysis of bonding to wet and dry dentin. Am J Dent 13(6):324-8. 2000;.

3. Reis A, Grande RH, Oliveira GM, Lopes GC, Loguercio AD. A 2-year evaluation of moisture on microtensile bond strength and nanoleakage. Dent Mater;23(7):862-70. 2007.

4. Salz U, Bock T. Testing adhesion of direct restoratives to dental hard tissue–a review. J Adhes Dent;12(5):343-71. 2010.

5. Peumans M, Kanumilli P, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives: a systematic review of current clinical trials. Dent Mater;21(9):864-81. 2005.

6. Ozer F, Blatz MB. Self-etch and etch-and-rinse adhesive systems in clinical dentistry. Compend Contin Educ Dent;34(1):12-4, 16, 18; quiz 20, 30. 2013.

7. Hanabusa M, Mine A, Kuboki T, Momoi Y, Van Ende A, Van Meerbeek B, et al. Bonding effectiveness of a new ‘multi-mode’ adhesive to enamel and dentine. J Dent;40(6):475-84. 2012.

8. Perdigao J, Sezinando A, Monteiro PC. Laboratory bonding ability of a multi-purpose dentin adhesive. Am J Dent;25(3):153-8. 2012.

9. Munoz MA, Luque I, Hass V, Reis A, Loguercio AD, Bombarda NH. Immediate bonding properties of universal adhesives to dentine. J Dent;41(5):404-11. 2013.

10. Perdigao J, Kose C, Mena-Serrano A, De Paula E, Tay L, Reis A, et al. A New Universal Simplified Adhesive: 18-Month Clinical Evaluation. Oper Dent. 39:113-127, 2014.

11. Mena-Serrano A, Kose C, De Paula EA, Tay LY, Reis A, Loguercio AD, et al. A new universal simplified adhesive: 6-month clinical evaluation. J Esthet Restor Dent;25(1):55-69. 2013.

12. Angker L, Nockolds C, Swain MV, Kilpatrick N. Quantitative analysis of the mineral content of sound and carious primary dentine using BSE imaging. Arch Oral Biol;49(2):99-107. 2004.

13. Lenzi TL, Guglielmi Cde A, Arana-Chavez VE, Raggio DP. Tubule density and diameter in coronal dentin from primary and permanent human teeth. Microsc Microanal;19(6):1445-9. 2013.

14. Senawongse P, Harnirattisai C, Shimada Y, Tagami J. Effective bond strength of current adhesive systems on deciduous and permanent dentin. Oper Dent;29(2):196-202. 2004.

15. Uekusa S, Yamaguchi K, Miyazaki M, Tsubota K, Kurokawa H, Hosoya Y. Bonding efficacy of single-step self-etch systems to sound primary and permanent tooth dentin. Oper Dent;31(5):569-76. 2006.

16. Lenzi TL, Soares FZ, Rocha RD. Degradation of resin-dentin bonds of etch-and-rinse adhesive system to primary and permanent teeth. Braz Oral Res 2012.

17. Reis A, Loguercio AD, Azevedo CL, de Carvalho RM, da Julio Singer M, Grande RH. Moisture spectrum of demineralized dentin for adhesive systems with different solvent bases. J Adhes Dent;5(3):183-92. 2003.

18. Pashley DH, Tay FR. Aggressiveness of contemporary self-etching adhesives. Part II: etching effects on unground enamel. Dent Mater;17(5):430- 44. 2001.

19. Sanabe ME, Kantovitz KR, Costa CA, Hebling J. Effect of acid etching time on the degradation of resin-dentin bonds in primary teeth. Am J Dent;22(1):37-42. 2009.

20. Yoshida Y, Yoshihara K, Nagaoka N, Hayakawa S, Torii Y, Ogawa T, et al. Self-assembled Nano-layering at the Adhesive interface. J Dent Res;91(4):376-81. 2012.

21. De Munck J, Vargas M, Iracki J, Van Landuyt K, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, et al. One-day bonding effectiveness of new self-etch adhesives to bur-cut enamel and dentin. Oper Dent;30(1):39-49. 2005.

22. Sensi LG, Lopes GC, Monteiro S, Jr., Baratieri LN, Vieira LC. Dentin bond strength of self-etching primers/adhesives. Oper Dent;30(1):63-8. 2005.

23. Ito S, Tay FR, Hashimoto M, Yoshiyama M, Saito T, Brackett WW, et al. Effects of multiple coatings of two all-in-one adhesives on dentin bonding. J Adhes Dent;7(2):133-41. 2005.

24. Frankenberger R, Perdigao J, Rosa BT, Lopes M. “No-bottle” vs “multibottle” dentin adhesives—a microtensile bond strength and morphological study. Dent Mater;17(5):373-80. 2001.

25. Soares FZ, Rocha Rde O, Raggio DP, Sadek FT, Cardoso PE. Microtensile bond strength of different adhesive systems to primary and permanent dentin. Pediatr Dent;27(6):457-62. 2005.

26. Botelho Amaral FL, Martao Florio F, Bovi Ambrosano GM, Basting RT. Morphology and microtensile bond strength of adhesive systems to in situformed caries-affected dentin after the use of a papain-based chemomechanical gel method. Am J Dent;24(1):13-9. 2011.

27. Chibinski AC, Stanislawczuk R, Roderjan DA, Loguercio AD, Wambier DS, Grande RH, et al. Clinical versus laboratory adhesive performance to wet and dry demineralized primary dentin. Am J Dent;24(4):221-5. 2011.

28. Nor JE, Feigal RJ, Dennison JB, Edwards CA. Dentin bonding: SEM comparison of the resin-dentin interface in primary and permanent teeth. J Dent Res;75(6):1396-403. 1996.

29. Nor JE, Feigal RJ, Dennison JB, Edwards CA. Dentin bonding: SEM comparison of the dentin surface in primary and permanent teeth. Pediatr Dent;19(4):246-52. 1997.

30. Bordin-Aykroyd S, Sefton J, Davies EH. In vitro bond strengths of three current dentin adhesives to primary and permanent teeth. Dent Mater;8(2):74-8. 1992.

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.

Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.

JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Scopus: CiteScore 1.8 (2023) Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.

Submission Turnaround Time