2
Ask the Experts DENTIN/ENAMEL BONDINGAuthor and Associate Editor Edward J. Swift, Jr., DMD, MS* QUESTION: The last few issues of JERD have addressed the question of which resin-based dentin/enamel adhesives are the “best.” So based on the input of the various experts who have responded to this ques- tion, can you tell me whether there is a consensus response? ANSWER: Although opinions of the experts varied somewhat, I believe that a clear consensus has emerged. When we consider bonding to both dentin and enamel, the three-step etch-and-rinse materials (e.g., OptiBond FL, Kerr Corporation, Orange, CA, USA) remain the gold standard. These versatile materials provide an excellent bond to enamel and a very good bond to dentin. More importantly, they have demonstrated excellent clinical performance in long-term studies. If we consider bonding to dentin only, the mildly acidic two-step self-etch systems (e.g., Clearfil SE Bond, Kuraray, Tokyo, Japan) appear to provide the most durable bonds. Although controlled clinical trials have not proven that self-etch materials reduce the incidence of postoperative sensitivity, plenty of anecdotal evidence suggests that they do. The main drawback of these materials is their relatively weak bond to enamel. However, this can be overcome by selective etching of enamel before the appli- cation of the self-etch primer. The one-bottle (combined primer and bonding agent) etch-and-rinse adhesives provide an excellent bond to enamel and a reasonable bond to dentin. However, their dentin bonds are not as stable as either of the previously described categories, especially when the dentin is not protected by a rim of enamel. Despite the fact that they have generally not performed as well as their three-step predecessors in either long-term laboratory testing or clinical trials, they remain a viable option for bonding, especially when enamel is present and proper techniques are followed. They may not measure up to the gold standard, but in my opinion, they have done very well in the “real world” of dentistry outside of the laboratory and clinical trials. One category of adhesive remains—the “all-in-one” self-etch materials. By definition, these materials are easy to use; after all, the three necessary functions for adhesion (condition, priming, and bonding) are delivered simulta- neously. However, despite their ease of use and increasing popular- ity, these materials are the least likely to provide a durable bond to dentin and enamel. At the moment, they are generally the poorest option for bonding. Admittedly, there are some exceptions (e.g., *Professor and Chair, Department of Operative Dentistry, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA © 2010, COPYRIGHT THE AUTHOR JOURNAL COMPILATION © 2010, WILEY PERIODICALS, INC. DOI 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2010.00365.x VOLUME 22, NUMBER 6, 2010 352

DENTIN/ENAMEL BONDING

  • Upload
    author

  • View
    216

  • Download
    2

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: DENTIN/ENAMEL BONDING

Ask the Experts

DENTIN/ENAMEL BONDINGjerd_365 352..353

Author and Associate EditorEdward J. Swift, Jr., DMD, MS*

QUESTION: The last few issues ofJERD have addressed the questionof which resin-based dentin/enameladhesives are the “best.” So basedon the input of the various expertswho have responded to this ques-tion, can you tell me whether thereis a consensus response?

ANSWER: Although opinions of theexperts varied somewhat, I believethat a clear consensus has emerged.When we consider bonding to bothdentin and enamel, the three-stepetch-and-rinse materials (e.g.,OptiBond FL, Kerr Corporation,Orange, CA, USA) remain the goldstandard. These versatile materialsprovide an excellent bond toenamel and a very good bond todentin. More importantly, theyhave demonstrated excellentclinical performance inlong-term studies.

If we consider bonding to dentinonly, the mildly acidic two-step

self-etch systems (e.g., Clearfil SEBond, Kuraray, Tokyo, Japan)appear to provide the most durablebonds. Although controlled clinicaltrials have not proven that self-etchmaterials reduce the incidence ofpostoperative sensitivity, plenty ofanecdotal evidence suggests thatthey do. The main drawback ofthese materials is their relativelyweak bond to enamel. However,this can be overcome by selectiveetching of enamel before the appli-cation of the self-etch primer.

The one-bottle (combined primerand bonding agent) etch-and-rinseadhesives provide an excellentbond to enamel and a reasonablebond to dentin. However, theirdentin bonds are not as stable aseither of the previously describedcategories, especially when thedentin is not protected by a rim ofenamel. Despite the fact that theyhave generally not performedas well as their three-step

predecessors in either long-termlaboratory testing or clinical trials,they remain a viable option forbonding, especially when enamel ispresent and proper techniques arefollowed. They may not measureup to the gold standard, but in myopinion, they have done very wellin the “real world” of dentistryoutside of the laboratory andclinical trials.

One category of adhesiveremains—the “all-in-one” self-etchmaterials. By definition, thesematerials are easy to use; after all,the three necessary functions foradhesion (condition, priming, andbonding) are delivered simulta-neously. However, despite theirease of use and increasing popular-ity, these materials are the leastlikely to provide a durable bond todentin and enamel. At the moment,they are generally the poorestoption for bonding. Admittedly,there are some exceptions (e.g.,

*Professor and Chair, Department of Operative Dentistry, University of North Carolina,Chapel Hill, NC, USA

© 2 0 1 0 , C O P Y R I G H T T H E A U T H O RJ O U R N A L C O M P I L AT I O N © 2 0 1 0 , W I L E Y P E R I O D I C A L S , I N C .DOI 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2010.00365.x V O L U M E 2 2 , N U M B E R 6 , 2 0 1 0352

Page 2: DENTIN/ENAMEL BONDING

restoration of a deciduous tooth ina difficult pediatric patient), andthe materials are definitely improv-ing. Nevertheless, this category ofadhesives is the least proven andhas the most negatives.

A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S

Claus-Peter Ernst, Dr Med DentJorge Perdigão, DMD, MS, PhDPatricia N.R. Pereira, DDS, PhDBart Van Meerbeek, DDS, PhD

S U G G E S T E D R E A D I N G S

Swift EJ. Dentin/enamel bonding. J EsthetRestor Dent 2010;22:4–6.

Perdigão J. Dentin/enamel bonding. J EsthetRestor Dent 2010;22:82–5.

Van Meerbeek B. Dentin/enamel bonding.J Esthet Restor Dent 2010;22:157.

Ernst CP. Dentin/enamel bonding. J EsthetRestor Dent 2010;22:210–2.

Pereira PNR. Dentin/enamel bonding. J EsthetRestor Dent 2010;22:280–1.

Editor’s Note: If you have a question on any aspect of esthetic dentistry,please direct it to the Associate Editor, Dr. Edward J. Swift, Jr. We will forwardquestions to appropriate experts and print the answers in this regular feature.

Ask the ExpertsDr. Edward J. Swift, Jr., DMD, MSDepartment of Operative DentistryUniversity of North CarolinaCB#7450, Brauer HallChapel Hill, NC 27599-7450Telephone: 919-966-2770; Fax: 919-966-5660E-mail: [email protected]

A S K T H E E X P E R T S

V O L U M E 2 2 , N U M B E R 6 , 2 0 1 0 353