Enamel-smear compromises bonding by mild self-etch adhesives

A. Mine, J. De Munck, M. Vivan Cardoso, K. L. Van Landuyt, A. Poitevin, Takuo Kuboki, Y. Yoshida, K. Suzuki, B. Van Meerbeek

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

47 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In light of the increased popularity of less acidic, so-called 'ultra-mild' self-etch adhesives, adhesion to enamel is becoming more critical. It is hypothesized that this compromised enamel bonding should, to a certain extent, be attributed to interference of bur debris smeared across enamel during cavity preparation. High-resolution transmission electron microscopy revealed that the enamel smear layer differed not only in thickness, but also in crystal density and size, depending on the surface-preparation method used. Lab-demineralization of sections clearly disclosed that resin-infiltration of an ultra-mild self-etch adhesive progressed preferentially along micro-cracks that were abundantly present at and underneath the bur-cut enamel surface. The surface-preparation method significantly affected the nature of the smear layer and the interaction with the ultra-mild adhesive, being more uniform and dense for a lab-SiC-prepared surface vs. a clinically relevant bur-prepared surface.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1505-1509
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Dental Research
Volume89
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2010

Fingerprint

Dental Enamel
Adhesives
Smear Layer
Transmission Electron Microscopy

Keywords

  • adhesion
  • enamel
  • hybrid layer
  • resin-smear complex
  • smear layer
  • TEM
  • ultra-mild self-etch adhesive

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Mine, A., De Munck, J., Vivan Cardoso, M., Van Landuyt, K. L., Poitevin, A., Kuboki, T., ... Van Meerbeek, B. (2010). Enamel-smear compromises bonding by mild self-etch adhesives. Journal of Dental Research, 89(12), 1505-1509. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034510384871

Enamel-smear compromises bonding by mild self-etch adhesives. / Mine, A.; De Munck, J.; Vivan Cardoso, M.; Van Landuyt, K. L.; Poitevin, A.; Kuboki, Takuo; Yoshida, Y.; Suzuki, K.; Van Meerbeek, B.

In: Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 89, No. 12, 12.2010, p. 1505-1509.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Mine, A, De Munck, J, Vivan Cardoso, M, Van Landuyt, KL, Poitevin, A, Kuboki, T, Yoshida, Y, Suzuki, K & Van Meerbeek, B 2010, 'Enamel-smear compromises bonding by mild self-etch adhesives', Journal of Dental Research, vol. 89, no. 12, pp. 1505-1509. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034510384871
Mine A, De Munck J, Vivan Cardoso M, Van Landuyt KL, Poitevin A, Kuboki T et al. Enamel-smear compromises bonding by mild self-etch adhesives. Journal of Dental Research. 2010 Dec;89(12):1505-1509. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034510384871
Mine, A. ; De Munck, J. ; Vivan Cardoso, M. ; Van Landuyt, K. L. ; Poitevin, A. ; Kuboki, Takuo ; Yoshida, Y. ; Suzuki, K. ; Van Meerbeek, B. / Enamel-smear compromises bonding by mild self-etch adhesives. In: Journal of Dental Research. 2010 ; Vol. 89, No. 12. pp. 1505-1509.
@article{498b3d7fee164f1fb79a0fa3318e525e,
title = "Enamel-smear compromises bonding by mild self-etch adhesives",
abstract = "In light of the increased popularity of less acidic, so-called 'ultra-mild' self-etch adhesives, adhesion to enamel is becoming more critical. It is hypothesized that this compromised enamel bonding should, to a certain extent, be attributed to interference of bur debris smeared across enamel during cavity preparation. High-resolution transmission electron microscopy revealed that the enamel smear layer differed not only in thickness, but also in crystal density and size, depending on the surface-preparation method used. Lab-demineralization of sections clearly disclosed that resin-infiltration of an ultra-mild self-etch adhesive progressed preferentially along micro-cracks that were abundantly present at and underneath the bur-cut enamel surface. The surface-preparation method significantly affected the nature of the smear layer and the interaction with the ultra-mild adhesive, being more uniform and dense for a lab-SiC-prepared surface vs. a clinically relevant bur-prepared surface.",
keywords = "adhesion, enamel, hybrid layer, resin-smear complex, smear layer, TEM, ultra-mild self-etch adhesive",
author = "A. Mine and {De Munck}, J. and {Vivan Cardoso}, M. and {Van Landuyt}, {K. L.} and A. Poitevin and Takuo Kuboki and Y. Yoshida and K. Suzuki and {Van Meerbeek}, B.",
year = "2010",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1177/0022034510384871",
language = "English",
volume = "89",
pages = "1505--1509",
journal = "Journal of Dental Research",
issn = "0022-0345",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Enamel-smear compromises bonding by mild self-etch adhesives

AU - Mine, A.

AU - De Munck, J.

AU - Vivan Cardoso, M.

AU - Van Landuyt, K. L.

AU - Poitevin, A.

AU - Kuboki, Takuo

AU - Yoshida, Y.

AU - Suzuki, K.

AU - Van Meerbeek, B.

PY - 2010/12

Y1 - 2010/12

N2 - In light of the increased popularity of less acidic, so-called 'ultra-mild' self-etch adhesives, adhesion to enamel is becoming more critical. It is hypothesized that this compromised enamel bonding should, to a certain extent, be attributed to interference of bur debris smeared across enamel during cavity preparation. High-resolution transmission electron microscopy revealed that the enamel smear layer differed not only in thickness, but also in crystal density and size, depending on the surface-preparation method used. Lab-demineralization of sections clearly disclosed that resin-infiltration of an ultra-mild self-etch adhesive progressed preferentially along micro-cracks that were abundantly present at and underneath the bur-cut enamel surface. The surface-preparation method significantly affected the nature of the smear layer and the interaction with the ultra-mild adhesive, being more uniform and dense for a lab-SiC-prepared surface vs. a clinically relevant bur-prepared surface.

AB - In light of the increased popularity of less acidic, so-called 'ultra-mild' self-etch adhesives, adhesion to enamel is becoming more critical. It is hypothesized that this compromised enamel bonding should, to a certain extent, be attributed to interference of bur debris smeared across enamel during cavity preparation. High-resolution transmission electron microscopy revealed that the enamel smear layer differed not only in thickness, but also in crystal density and size, depending on the surface-preparation method used. Lab-demineralization of sections clearly disclosed that resin-infiltration of an ultra-mild self-etch adhesive progressed preferentially along micro-cracks that were abundantly present at and underneath the bur-cut enamel surface. The surface-preparation method significantly affected the nature of the smear layer and the interaction with the ultra-mild adhesive, being more uniform and dense for a lab-SiC-prepared surface vs. a clinically relevant bur-prepared surface.

KW - adhesion

KW - enamel

KW - hybrid layer

KW - resin-smear complex

KW - smear layer

KW - TEM

KW - ultra-mild self-etch adhesive

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78650080293&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=78650080293&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0022034510384871

DO - 10.1177/0022034510384871

M3 - Article

VL - 89

SP - 1505

EP - 1509

JO - Journal of Dental Research

JF - Journal of Dental Research

SN - 0022-0345

IS - 12

ER -