To evaluate the effect of combining 5% hydrofluoric acid (HF) and silane (SI) with the self-etching ceramic primer on the immediate and after 1-year of water storage on bonding efficacy, conditioning pattern (CP) and chemical interaction (CI) to the lithium disilicate. A total of 16 CAD/CAM blocks of lithium disilicate (LD) were cut into four square sections (n=64). For bonding efficacy evaluation, the LD specimens were divided into 4 groups (n=10): 1) HF+SI; 2) self-etching ceramic primer (MEP); 3) HF+MEP; 4) MEP+SI. After each treatment, an adhesive system was applied and Tygon matrices were filled with a dual-cured resin cement followed by light curing. Cylinder specimens (0.8 mmx0.5mm) were stored in water (37 °C for 24 h or 1-year) and submitted to the μSBS test (2-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test; a=0.05). CP and CI were only evaluated qualitatively. No significant difference on the μSBS was observed between groups (p=0.73), but reduced μSBS was observed after 1-year of water storage (p>0.0001). After application of HF+SI and MEP, reduction in a number of siloxane bonds was observed, suggesting the coupling of SI on the LD surface. HF or HF+MEP produced a higher dissolution of the glassy matrix than the use of MEP alone. The MEP can be an alternative to traditional ceramic treatment once the chemical interaction and long-term bond strength were similar between both groups. The association of hydrofluoric acid or silane with a self-etching ceramic primer did not add any benefits in terms of chemical interaction and bonding stability.

The objective of this study is to compare the resin-enamel bond strength (mμSBS), in-situ degree of conversion (DC), and the enamel-etching pattern (SEM/EDX) of universal adhesive systems when applied to sound and fluorotic enamel. Ninety-eight human molars were sectioned into 4 parts and divided into 24 groups according to 1) enamel surface (sound or fluorotic enamel), 2) adhesive system (Clearfil Universal Bond [CUB], Futurabond U [FBU], iBond Universal [IBU], and Scotchbond Universal [SBU]), and 3) application mode (etch-and-rinse [ER], active self-etch [Active-SE], and passive self-etch [Passive-SE]). Specimens were stored at 37 °C, for 24 hours and tested at 1.0 mm/min (μSBS). Enamel–resin interfaces were evaluated for in-situ DC. The enamel-etching pattern was evaluated under a SEM/EDX. Data from mμSBS and in-situ DC was analyzed using a three-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test at 5 % level of significance. For all adhesives, the ER resulted in a statistically significant higher mean mμSBS than the passive-SE in both substrates (p < 0.001). For all adhesives, active-SE resulted in mean mμSBS (p > 0.31) and in-situ DC (p > 0.45) that were statistically similar to those obtained with the ERs in both substrates. A statistically significant, higher mean mμSBS and in-situ DC were obtained in sound enamel (p < 0.001) than in fluorotic enamel. In general, SBU showed higher mean values for mμSBS and in-situ DC compared to those of CUB and IBU (p < 0.001). ER and active-SE showed the deepest enamel-etching pattern in both substrates. A higher amount of fluor was observed in fluorotic enamel. The active application of universal adhesives in the SE-mode may be a viable alternative to increase the adhesive properties in sound and fluorotic enamel.

This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the effect of different bonding strategies on the micro-shear bond strength (μSBS) of luting agents to CAD–CAM composites. Surface scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and spectroscopy by energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) were performed to analyze the surfaces of the composite before and after bonding treatment. Three CAD–CAM composites were evaluated: Lava Ultimate restorative (LU), Brava Blocks (BR), and Vita Enamic (VE). The LU and BR surfaces were sandblasted using aluminum oxide, while the VE surfaces were etched using a 5% hydrofluoric acid gel according to the manufacturers’ recommendations. All surfaces were subjected to the following bonding strategies (n = 15): adhesive with silane and MDP (ScotchBond Universal, 3M Oral Care, St Paul, MI, USA); adhesive with MDP (Ambar Universal, FGM, Joinville, Brazil); adhesive without silane or MDP (Prime&Bond Elect, Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC, USA), pure silane without MDP (Angelus, Londrina, Brazil), and pure silane with MDP (Monobond N, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstei). Afterwards, tygons were filled with RelyX Ultimate (3M Oral Care), AllCem (FGM), or Enforce (Dentsply Sirona), which were light-cured and subjected to the μSBS test. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni’s post hoc test (α = 0.05). Additional blocks (n = 15) were subjected to scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) before and after the surface treatment. The μSBS values on VE surfaces were higher than those observed on LU and BR surfaces (p < 0.001). Silane without MDP (Allcem) promoted the highest μSBS values, while silane with MDP (RelyX Ultimate) provided the highest values among all bonding strategies (p < 0.001). Enforce promoted no significant difference in μSBS values. SEM and EDS analyses detected noticeable changes to the surface morphology and composition after the surface treatment. The effectiveness of the bonding strategy may vary according not only to the CAD–CAM composite but also to resin cement/bonding agent/silane used.

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of the pretreatment with sandblasting and deproteinization with NaOCl on bond strength (SBS), in situ conversion degree (CD) of brackets in fluorotic enamel, and enamel etching pattern. Methods: A total of 90 non-carious maxillary premolars were used. The teeth were then assigned to six experimental groups according to: enamel surface (sound and fluorotic enamel); surface treatment (Regular etch with 37% phosphoric acid [RE]; 5.2% sodium hypochlorite + phosphoric acid [NaOCl + RE]; sandblasting + phosphoric acid [sandblasting + RE]). After storage in distilled water (37°C/24h), the specimens were tested at 1 mm/min until failure (SBS). Enamel-resin cement interfaces were evaluated for CD using micro-Raman spectroscopy. The enamel-etching pattern was evaluated under a scanning electron microscope. Data from SBS and in situ CD values were analyzed using ANOVA two-away and Tukey test (α=0.05). The enamel etching pattern was evaluated only qualitatively. Results: For sound enamel, RE showed the highest SBS values, when compared to NaOCl + RE and Sandblasting + RE groups (p< 0.01). Regarding CD, only NaOCl + RE significantly compromised the mean DC, in comparison with other groups (p= 0.002). For fluorotic enamel, the Sandblasting + RE group significantly increased the mean SBS values, in comparison with RE group (p= 0.01) and no significant change was observed for CD (p> 0.52). Conclusions: The application of NaOCl or sandblasting associated to phosphoric acid improved the SBS of the brackets in fluorotic enamel without compromising the CD of the resin cement, with improving of enamel interprismatic conditioning.