title: Enamel Wetness Effects on Microshear Bond Strength of Different Bonding Agents (Adhesive Systems): An in vitro Comparative Evaluation Study.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of enamel wetness on microshear bond strength using different adhesive systems.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To evaluate microshear bond strength of three bonding agents on dry enamel; to evaluate microshear bond strength of three bonding agents on wet enamel; and to compare microshear bond strength of three different bonding agents on dry and wet enamel.
  
  
  METHODS
  Sixty extracted noncarious human premolars were selected for this study. Flat enamel surfaces of approximately 3 mm were obtained by grinding the buccal surfaces of premolars with water-cooled diamond disks. This study evaluated one etch-and-rinse adhesive system (Single Bond 2) and two self-etching adhesive systems (Clearfil SE Bond and Xeno-V). The specimens were divided into two groups (n = 30). Group I (dry) was air-dried for 30 seconds and in group II (wet) surfaces were blotted with absorbent paper to remove excess water. These groups were further divided into six subgroups (n = 10) according to the adhesives used. The resin composite, Filtek Z 250, was bonded to flat enamel surfaces that had been treated with one of the adhesives, following the manufacturer's instructions. After being stored in water at 37°C for 24 hours, bonded specimens were stressed in universal testing machine (Fig. 3) at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The data were evaluated with one-way and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), t-test, and Tukey's Multiple Post hoc tests (a = 0.05).
  
  
  RESULTS
  The two-way ANOVA and Tukey's Multiple Post hoc tests showed significant differences among adhesive systems, but wetness did not influence microshear bond strength (p = 0.1762). The one-way ANOVA and t-test showed that the all-in-one adhesive (Xeno-V) was the only material influenced by the presence of water on the enamel surface. Xeno-V showed significantly higher microshear bond strength when the enamel was kept wet. Single Bond 2 adhesive showed significantly higher microshear bond strength as compared with Xeno-V adhesive but no significant difference when compared with Clearfil SE Bond adhesive in dry enamel. Single Bond 2 adhesive showed no significant difference in microshear bond strength as compared with self-etching adhesive systems (Clearfil SE Bond and Xeno-V), when the enamel was kept wet.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  From the findings of the results, it was concluded that self-etching adhesives were not negatively affected by the presence of water on the enamel surface.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The all-in-one adhesive showed different behavior depending on whether the enamel surface was dry or wet. So the enamel surface should not be desiccated, when self-etching adhesives are used.
authors.affiliation: Private Practice, Practitioner Akash Dental Care, NR Colony, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India Phone: +917760998794 e-mail: jaguaramazon@gmail.com.
authors.forename: Girish
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Kulkarni
authors.affiliation: Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Rama Dental College and Hospital, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India.
authors.forename: Vinay K
authors.initials: VK
authors.lastname: Mishra
mesh_terms: D000134:Acid Etching, Dental; D000269:Adhesives; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate; D003188:Composite Resins / Q000737:chemistry; D001840:Dental Bonding; D003738:Dental Cements; D003743:Dental Enamel; D003799:Dental Stress Analysis; D003804:Dentin; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents / Q000737:chemistry; D019279:Resin Cements
chemical_list: D000269:Adhesives; C438313:Clearfil SE Bond; D003188:Composite Resins; D003738:Dental Cements; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents; D019279:Resin Cements; C575872:Xeno V; C115612:single bond; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate
keywords: Enamel wetness; Microshear bond strength; One-step self-etch adhesive; Two-step self-etching adhesive.