Schneller und besser? Ein In-vitro-Vergleich eines „no wait“ Universaladhäsivs mit einem Etch-and-Rinse-Adhäsiv bei Anwendung unterschiedlicher Komposit-Inkrementstärken hinsichtlich des Dentinhaftverbunds
Loading...
Files
Date
Authors
Publisher
Supervisors
Abstract
The aim of this study was to experimentally analyze the effect of a “no wait” universal adhesive in self-etch mode compared to a conventional, multi-step etch-and-rinse adhesive on the dentin bond, taking into account different composite layer thicknesses. Within the in vitro study, the tensile strength of the dentin bond was compared using Syntac (Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein) and Clearfil Universal Bond Quick (Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc., Tokyo, Japan), each applied in combination with the single- shade composite LC Chrome and the blocker LC Block (S&C Polymer, Elmshorn, Germany).
For the study, 40 human third molars free of caries and restorations were prepared with class I cavities. In the eight randomly assigned test groups, the multi-bottle adhesive Syntac was used in the groups Sy1 - Sy4 using the etch-and-rinse technique, whereas the “no wait” universal adhesive Clearfil Universal Bond Quick was used in the groups Cl1 - Cl4 in self-etch mode. All cavities were filled with LC Chrome and LC Block in varying composite layer thicknesses. The teeth were then sawn into sticks and the dentin bond strength was determined during a microtensile test. Fracture surfaces were visualized using a scanning electron microscope.
In pairwise comparison, the Clearfil Universal Bond Quick groups showed significantly higher dentin bond strength values than the Syntac groups (p-value ≤ 0.05), except for group Cl3, whose values were lower than those of Sy3 but did not differ significantly. When using Syntac, the group using three thinner increments achieved better dentin bond strengths than groups with two thicker increments, whereas the opposite result was observed when using Clearfil Universal Bond Quick. Within the Syntac groups, there were no significant differences in the bond strength depending on whether the single-shade
composite or the blocker was used as the bottom layer (p-value > 0.05). In contrast, in combination with Clearfil Universal Bond Quick the group without the blocker achieved significantly higher values (p-value ≤ 0.05).
The “no wait” universal adhesive Clearfil Universal Bond Quick achieves higher dentin bond strength in self-etch mode compared to the three-bottle adhesive Syntac applied in the etch-and-rinse mode. Saving time with the help of the “no wait” strategy of the universal adhesive provides an advantage in the present study. The incremental layering technique should be adapted to the selected adhesive system. Avoiding the blocker resulted in better dentin bond strength when using the universal adhesive Clearfil Universal Bond Quick.
Review
Metadata
Contributors
Supervisor:
Dates
Issued: 2026-01-26
Faculty
FB20:Medizin
Language
de
Keywords
UniversaladhäsivAdhäsivAdhäsivtechnikEtch-and-rinse-Adhäsivhoher C-Faktorchromadaptives KompositKompositBlockerInkrementtechniklayering techniqueadhesiveKlasse 1 KavitätAmalgamersatzmaterialDentinhaftungdentin bond strengthMikrotensilmicro tensile
DFG-subjects
2.22-28 - Zahnheilkunde; Mund-, Kiefer- und Gesichtschirurgie
show more
Kadel, Lizann Marie Katharina: Schneller und besser? Ein In-vitro-Vergleich eines „no wait“ Universaladhäsivs mit einem Etch-and-Rinse-Adhäsiv bei Anwendung unterschiedlicher Komposit-Inkrementstärken hinsichtlich des Dentinhaftverbunds. : 2026-01-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17192/openumr/468.
License
This item has been published with the following license: In Copyright