Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Faculdade de Odontologia, Departamento de Odontologia Restauradora, Belo Horizonte, Brasil.
Acta Odontol Latinoam. 2022 Dec 31;35(3):155-163. doi: 10.54589/aol.35/3/155.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) to dentin of two universal adhesive systems: Single Bond Universal (SBU) and Ambar Universal (AU), used in different adhesion strategies.
Thirty-six human teeth were prepared (n=6) and treated following different adhesive strategies: G1: SBU-etch-and-rinse, applied on dry dentin; G2: SBUetch- and-rinse, applied on moist dentin; G3: SBU-self-etching; G4: AU-etch-and-rinse, applied on dry dentin; G5: AU-etch-and-rinse, applied on moist dentin; G6: AU-self-etching. The specimens were submitted to μTBS test, failure analysis, and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Data were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey's tests (p<0.05).
Microtensile bond strength was significantly lower in G1 than G2 and G3. AU adhesive performed worse than the SBU system, except in G5. Cohesive and mixed failures predominated in G1 and G2, while adhesive failures predominated in G3 and G5.
Universal adhesives are an interesting innovation, but there are still doubts about their performance, mainly regarding the different protocols provided by the manufacturers. The conventional adhesive strategy on moist dentin demonstrated higher μTBS for both adhesives. The use of the selfetching strategy with the SBU showed promising results.
本研究旨在评估两种通用型粘结剂系统（Single Bond Universal [SBU] 和 Ambar Universal [AU]）在不同粘结策略下对牙本质的微拉伸粘结强度（μTBS）。
对 36 个人类牙齿进行制备（n=6）并采用不同粘结策略进行处理：G1：SBU-酸蚀冲洗，应用于干燥牙本质；G2：SBU-酸蚀冲洗，应用于湿润牙本质；G3：SBU-自酸蚀；G4：AU-酸蚀冲洗，应用于干燥牙本质；G5：AU-酸蚀冲洗，应用于湿润牙本质；G6：AU-自酸蚀。将标本进行 μTBS 测试、失效分析和扫描电子显微镜（SEM）检查。采用方差分析和 Tukey 检验（p<0.05）对数据进行分析。
G1 的微拉伸粘结强度明显低于 G2 和 G3。AU 粘结剂的性能劣于 SBU 系统，除 G5 外。G1 和 G2 中以黏合性和混合性失效为主，而 G3 和 G5 中以粘结性失效为主。
通用粘结剂是一项有趣的创新，但它们的性能仍存在疑问，主要是因为制造商提供的不同方案。湿润牙本质上的传统粘结策略对两种粘结剂均表现出更高的 μTBS。SBU 自酸蚀策略的应用显示出有前景的结果。
