Next Article in Journal
Grain Selection in a High-Efficiency 2D Grain Selector During Casting of Single-Crystal Superalloys
Next Article in Special Issue
Effects of Finish Line Design and Fatigue Cyclic Loading on Phase Transformation of Zirconia Dental Ceramics: A Qualitative Micro-Raman Spectroscopic Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Application of the Microwave Technique in Continuous Flow Processing of Organophosphorus Chemical Reactions
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of Different Surface Treatments on Titanium Dental Implant Micro-Morphology
Article Menu
Issue 5 (March-1) cover image

Export Article

Materials 2019, 12(5), 790; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12050790

Review
10-MDP Based Dental Adhesives: Adhesive Interface Characterization and Adhesive Stability—A Systematic Review
1,2,3,4,†, 1,2,*,†, 1,2,3,4,5, 1,3,4,6, 1,2,3,4 and 1,2,3,4
1
Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, 3000-354 Coimbra, Portugal
2
Institute of Integrated Clinical Practice, Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, 3000-354 Coimbra, Portugal
3
Institute for Clinical and Biomedical Research (iCBR) area of Environment Genetics and Oncobiology (CIMAGO), Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, 3000-354 Coimbra, Portugal
4
CNC.IBILI, Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, 3000-354 Coimbra, Portugal
5
Institute of Endodontics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, 3000-354 Coimbra, Portugal
6
Institute of Experimental Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, 3000-354 Coimbra, Portugal
*
Correspondence: [email protected]
Co-first authors.
Received: 8 February 2019 / Accepted: 1 March 2019 / Published: 7 March 2019

Abstract

:
The incorporation of functional monomers in dental adhesive systems promotes chemical interaction with dental substrates, resulting in higher adhesion forces when compared to micromechanical adhesion only. The 10-MDP monomer, whose chemical structure allows for a polar behavior which is favorable to adhesion, also promotes the protection of collagen fibers through the formation of MDP-calcium salts. This systematic review aimed to characterize the interface created by 10-MDP containing adhesive systems through an evaluation of the following parameters: Formation of nano-layered structures, capacity to produce an acid-base resistant zone, and adhesion stability. The research was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Embase, limited to English, Spanish, and Portuguese articles. The research was done according to the PICO strategy. The 10-MDP monomer has the capacity to produce an acid-base resistant zone on the adhesive interface, which increases the response to acid-base challenges. The adhesion established by these systems is stable over time. To have the best of these adhesive solutions, a scrubbing technique must be used to apply the adhesive system on dental substrates, in order to improve monomers infiltration and to create a stable bond. Time must be given for the solution to infiltrate, hybridize and form the MDP-Ca, improving adhesive stability.
Keywords:
10-MDP; methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate; dental adhesives; self-etch adhesives; universal adhesives

1. Introduction

The procedures for performing a resin composite restoration include enamel etching, dentin conditioning, dentin priming and application of a dentin bonding agent, prior to the resin composite filling. However, since the introduction of adhesive resin-based restoration procedures, dental adhesives have been remarkably improved, and most commercially available adhesive systems have been simplified by combining some of the required steps [1,2,3]. In this context, and concerning direct dental restorations, self-etch adhesives and universal adhesives (systems which provide the operator with the choice for selecting the adhesive strategy; etch-and-rinse, self-etch or selective enamel etching) provide the promise for a specific chemical interaction capable of achieving more stable and long-lasting adhesion, with no additional tooth preparation for macro-mechanical retention, when compared to etch-and-rinse adhesives (whose principal adhesion mechanism is related to the micromechanical retention preceded by the removal of the smear layer) [4,5,6]. This interaction occurs due to functional monomers, which are acidic molecules that may serve various functions, such as etching tooth substrates (partially dissolving the smear layer and demineralizing hydroxyapatite), enhancing monomer penetration, and imparting the adhesives with potential for chemical interactions with dental substrates [7,8,9,10,11].
Functional monomers have at least one polymerizable group and a functional group which wets and demineralizes the substrate. According to the ‘adhesion-decalcification’ concept (the functional monomer either decalcifies or bonds to the tooth substrate), the functional group first ionically interacts with calcium in hydroxyapatite; depending on the resulting stability of the calcium-monomer complex, this ionic bond may either decompose and demineralize the tooth surface or remain stable [9,10,11,12].
Functional monomers have already been ranked based on their chemical bonding potential and 10-MDP (10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate) has been identified as being capable of establishing a very intensive and stable chemical interaction with hydroxyapatite. The MDP-Ca water-insoluble salts contribute to the protection of the collagen fibers. The atomic relation of the 10-MDP molecule favors the chemical interaction. However, impurities and dimers may reduce adhesive forces when using adhesive systems with this functional monomer [4,9,11,13,14,15].
The intense chemical interaction established between MDP and hydroxyapatite is ascribed to the superficial dissolution of hydroxyapatite induced by the adsorption of MDP, and subsequent deposition of MDP-Ca salts with lower solubility than of the salts produced by other functional monomers [14]. Monomer selection criteria must include properties such as calcium salt stability, wetting of the substrate and copolymerization behavior [16].
The aim for this article was to carry out a systematic review of the literature in order to evaluate the differences between the adhesive interfaces produced by dental adhesives containing 10-MDP and other adhesive systems. The aim was also to evaluate both bond strengths and adhesive stability of dental adhesives containing 10-MDP, in comparison with other systems/functional monomers.

2. Materials and Methods

The protocol used for this systematic review followed the recommendations of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) [17].
The research strategy of the present work was formulated according to PICO (Problem, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) as seen in Table 1.

2.1. Search Strategy

A literature search was conducted in the Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Embase databases, using the search formulas described in Table 2. Only articles in English, Spanish or Portuguese, published until January 2019 were included.

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The inclusion and exclusion criteria for selection and extraction of data are described in Table 3.
According to the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, all titles and abstracts were examined by one reviewer (M.C.) in order to find relevant studies; the full texts of the relevant studies were scrutinized by two reviewers (M.C. and E.C.) independently to select eligible studies on the outcomes described in the PICO strategy. Any disagreement was discussed, and the opinion of a third reviewer (A.S.C.) was sought if necessary.
Studies on commercially available adhesive systems were included in order to understand the 10-MDP performance compared to other functional monomers. Studies on specific formulations, where several groups were formed, varying on the concentrations of their components, were also included so that the mechanism of each one could be described or highlighted.
For each proposed outcome and included study, descriptive and quantitative information was extracted, including authors, year of publication, control and test groups, results (quantitative and qualitative) and relevant conclusions.
Due to the disparity of methodology, it was not possible to perform a quantitative analysis (meta-analysis).

3. Results

The initial search resulted in 1383 references: 274 from PubMed, 9 from Cochrane Library, 711 from Web of Science and 389 from Embase.
After evaluating titles and abstracts, 212 relevant studies were obtained. After full-text analysis, 72 references were included in this systematic review (Figure 1).
The key characteristics evaluated were:
  • Formation of nano-layered structures (MDP-Ca salts)—Formation/absence of nano-layered structures and morphology (Table 4);
  • Acid-base resistant zone (ABRZ)—Formation or absence of ABRZ, thickness, and differences between dentin ABRZ and enamel ABRZ (Table 5);
  • Adhesive stability—Measurement of adhesion forces (Table 6).

3.1. 10-MDP Monomer: Molecular Structure, Hydrophilicity and Nano-Layered Structures

Regarding the molecular structure of the 10-MDP monomer, its hydrophilicity and the formation of nano-layered structures, seven articles were found [5,6,18,19,20,21,22]. Commercially available adhesives systems [6,18,19,20] and experimental adhesive formulations [5,6,18,20,21,22] were used in order to clarify the different behavior between 10-MDP and other monomers used, as well as the different capacities regarding formation of nano-layering at the adhesive interface. The results are summarized in Table 4.

3.2. Capacity to Create an Acid-Base Resistant Zone (ABRZ)

Regarding the capacity of adhesive systems to produce an acid-base resistant zone six articles were found [2,10,23,24,25,26]. Commercially available adhesive systems [10,23,24,25,26] and experimental primer and bond [2,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23] were used to clarify the capacity of 10-MDP to create an ABRZ compared to other commonly used functional monomers. The results are summarized in Table 5.

3.3. Adhesive Stability

Regarding 10-MDP-related adhesive stability 22 articles were found [1,8,10,11,12,13,15,23,25,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39]. Commercially available adhesive systems [1,8,10,23,25,28,29,30,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39] and experimental adhesive formulations [8,10,11,12,13,15,23,27,31,36,38] were used to evaluate the adhesive stability of the 10-MDP monomer. The results are summarized in Table 6.

4. Discussion

Self-etch and universal adhesive systems were introduced in dentistry to reduce and facilitate the clinical application of these biomaterials, by overcoming some etch-and-rinse disadvantages such as a greater number of steps, longer application time, technique sensitivity and difficulty in controlling dentin wetness [40]. However, these adhesion strategies work less favorably with enamel, as acid etching is not necessary in order to demineralize collagen fibrils. In etch-and-rinse adhesives that step might lead to several micrometers depth of demineralized substrate, especially in dentin, which is not completely hybridized by the bond solution of those systems, promoting degradation, a process initiated by nanoleakage [41]. In mild and ultra-mild self-etch adhesive systems, the abundant presence of hydroxyapatite remaining around the collagen fibrils provides natural protection to the collagen and allows the functional monomers to potentially interact with the substrate. Typical resin tags will only be formed when using strong self-etching adhesives. The potential interaction of self-etch adhesives depends on the surface-preparation method [41,42,43].
Functional monomers are not the only components in adhesive systems formulations so the clinical protocol for self-etching adhesives application cannot be the same for all the commercial systems: different solvents may require changes in the protocols (time, application, …) for better results. Active application of adhesives using a scrubbing technique promotes solvent evaporation, leading to the impregnation of a higher rate of monomers inside the smear layer, thus improving adhesive-interface quality. Solvent evaporation is also dependent on substrate characteristics (orientation of dentin surfaces) and on the uniformity of the adhesive layers. Long-term retention is achieved with high-quality chemical interaction between the adhesive and the substrate, through the formation of a hybrid layer, characterized as a three-dimensional collagen-resin biopolymer that provides a continuous and stable link between the adhesive and the dentin substrate; micromechanical retention may be additionally present when pre-etching the enamel or when using strong self-etching adhesive systems [27,34,43,44]. When talking about adhesive systems, interaction with collagen is probably the most important aspect, since the deterioration of collagen fibrils within the hybrid layer compromises the long-term stability of dentin bonding; the chemical properties of functional monomers are thought to account for the high bond strength with dentin [45].
Self-assembled nano-layered structures have been identified through adhesive interfaces of commercial self-etch and universal adhesive systems, both on enamel and dentin. These structures, which are typical of the 10-MDP monomer, are thought to produce a better water-stable interface which is favorable to adhesion, and may justify the higher adhesive stability of 10-MDP containing adhesive systems, along with the stable MDP-Ca salts [18,19,20,46]. Although nano-layered structures (which can be identified when 10-MDP based adhesives are used) are thought to play an important role in the adhesive stability bond strength, some doubts remain on the actual role of these structures. In fact, nano-layering cannot be responsible for durability of resin-dentin bond since it was not identified through all of the adhesive interfaces of the commercially available adhesive systems. These structures contribute to a higher resistance to biodegradation and to the longevity of the bond by enhancing the immediate performance of the adhesive systems [6,19,47,48].
Functional monomers give adhesive systems formulations the capacity to interact with dental substrates. However, functional monomers may decrease the degree of conversion of camphoroquinone/amine-curing adhesives; this decrease is monomer-dependent, meaning that a different degree of conversion was observed depending on the incorporated monomer and concentration used, but was reduced by simultaneous interaction of the functional monomer with hydroxyapatite [23,49,50]. Also, functional monomers are partially responsible for the hydrophobic/hydrophilic behavior of bonding resins [23,28,30]. Though more hydrophilic spacer carbon chain induces more water sorption and better dentin wettability, more hydrophobic functional monomers (MDP) are more suitable in order to avoid the effects of hydrolytic degradation [21,49,51].
Nanoleakage corresponds to defects at the resin-dentin interface from hydrolytic degradation, which may serve as pathways for degradation; double application self-etch adhesives may contribute to the durability of the bond by building a less permeable layer [33]. Also, applying the adhesive by employing a scrubbing technique enhances resin monomer infiltration of dentin, water chasing on the dentin surface and smear layer dissolution, improving the quality of the adhesive interface, especially on mild self-etching adhesive systems [34].
The 10-MDP monomer has a proven potential to interact with hydroxyapatite; the bond produced by 10-MDP containing adhesives appears to be very stable, as confirmed by the low dissolution rate of its calcium salts in water. Etching capacities are related to the substrate where it is applied, to the incorporated monomer and to the bonding potential of other commonly used functional monomers (4-META, phenyl-P). At different degrees the bonding potential is substantially low, or produces bonds which are not hydrolytically stable [52]. However, adhesion differentials between commercial adhesive systems are noticed depending both on the dental substrate and on other components included in the adhesives formulations. Some universal adhesives were found to produce poor adhesive interfaces by being less 10-MDP concentrated which suggests that an optimal concentration and purity of 10-MDP in self-etch and universal adhesives may exist so the maximum potential of this functional monomer is achieved [5,8,11,12,53].
The 10-MDP monomer has a long and hydrophobic spacer chain and creates a rich MDP-Ca salt adhesive interface, which improves adhesion strength, remaining stable after one year of water-storage [13,15,31,45,54]. Although all the advantages of this monomer, application protocols are crucial (substrate, time and technique) [34,55,56]. The application of an extra hydrophobic layer when using one-step self-etching or universal adhesive systems may improve the adhesive interface (in terms of durability and of resistance to degradation) and increase the long-term retention of restorative materials [57]. When using one bottle, self-etching or universal adhesive systems enamel etching may be recommended since these adhesive systems tend to have higher pH values, which lowers the ability to etch the enamel [58,59].
However, MDP-Ca salts were found to depend on the components that constitute commercial adhesives more strongly than on the concentrations of MDP and water in the adhesive [60]. Water concentration in adhesive systems was found to affect the efficacy of smear layer removal, and dentin bonding performance more strongly than the pH value of the adhesives [61,62] and ethanol was found to limit the dissociation of phosphate groups from the 10-MDP monomer [8]. 4-META was found to enhance both enamel and dentin bond-strengths more effectively than HEMA [63]. Although HEMA tends to improve bond strength, HEMA-free adhesives are preferred because of its hydrophilicity; on the other hand, HEMA brings solvents back into solution [1,54,64]; also, MDP-HEMA aggregates were found to compromise the MDP-collagen interaction leaving collagen fibrils unprotected by MDP and HEMA [21,65,66,67]. Other components may compete for calcium against 10-MDP, such as zinc ions [68]. Calcium hydroxide was found to improve the degree of conversion without interfering with bond strength to dentin, or the extent of nanoleakage [69].
Adhesive systems containing 10-MDP have a proven interest. However, it is important not to forget, when using strong self-etching adhesive systems, that the adhesive solution may penetrate into dentinal tubules and reach the pulp, especially when restoring deep cavities. Current studies on cytotoxicity lack a complete understanding of the effect of these materials on the pulp, because it is difficult to mimic the clinical conditions of its application. Some studies have reported that minimally toxic concentrations of 10-MDP promoted an inflammatory response and suppressed odontoblastic differentiation of dental pulp cells [70,71]. Also, chemical properties of MDP-containing adhesives alter during storage because MDP hydrolysis leads to acidification of the adhesive solutions [72,73].

5. Conclusions

When selecting a functional monomer or adhesive system, 10-MDP monomer appears to be a safe choice because of its molecular structure which is favorable to adhesion, its hydrophobic behavior and characteristic adhesive interface which favors bond durability and strength.
10-MDP containing dental adhesives are biomaterials which can establish strong and durable adhesive interfaces. Although 10-MDP has a proven capacity to interact with hydroxyapatite, some clinical steps of application of these adhesives are crucial for the resultant bond interface.
To have the best of these adhesive solutions, selective enamel etching and a scrubbing technique must be used to apply the adhesive system on dental substrates, in order to improve monomers infiltration and to create a stable bond. Time must be given for the solution to infiltrate, hybridize and form the MDP-Ca, protecting collagen fibrils and improving adhesive stability.

Funding

This research received no external funding

Acknowledgments

To Helena Donato, director of the documentation service of Coimbra Hospital and University Centre.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Zhang, Z.; Tian, F.; Niu, L.; Ochala, K.; Chen, C.; Fu, B.; Wang, X.; Pashley, D.; Tay, F. Defying ageing: An expectation for dentine bonding with universal adhesives? J. Dent. 2016, 45, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Nikaido, T.; Ichikawa, C.; Li, N.; Takagaki, T.; Sadr, A.; Yoshida, Y.; Suzuki, K.; Tagami, J. Effect of functional monomers in all-in-one adhesive systems on formation of enamel/dentin acid-base resistant zone. Dent. Mater. J. 2011, 30, 576–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  3. Imai, T.; Itoh, K.; Tani, C.; Manabe, A.; Yamashita, T.; Hisamitsu, H.; Wakumoto, S. Effectiveness of simplified dentin bonding systems. Dent. Mater. J. 1998, 17, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Yoshihara, K.; Hayakawa, S.; Nagaoka, N.; Okihara, T.; Yoshida, Y.; Van Meerbeek, B. Etching Efficacy of Self-Etching Functional Monomers. J. Dent. Res. 2018, 97, 1010–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Yaguchi, T. Layering mechanism of MDP-Ca salt produced in demineralization of enamel and dentin apatite. Dent. Mater. 2017, 33, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Tian, F.; Zhou, L.; Zhang, Z.; Niu, L.; Zhang, L.; Chen, C.; Zhou, J.; Yang, H.; Wang, X.; Fu, B.; et al. Paucity of Nanolayering in Resin-Dentin Interfaces of MDP-based Adhesives. J. Dent. Res. 2016, 95, 380–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Yoshida, Y.; Nagakane, K.; Fukuda, R.; Nakayama, Y.; Okazaki, M.; Shintani, H.; Inoue, S.; Tagawa, Y.; Suzuki, K.; De Munck, J.; et al. Comparative study on adhesive performance of functional monomers. J. Dent. Res. 2004, 83, 454–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Zhang, Z.; Wang, X.; Zhang, L.; Liang, B.; Tang, T.; Fu, B.; Hannig, M. The contribution of chemical bonding to the short- and long-term enamel bond strengths. Dent. Mater. 2013, 29, e103–e112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Van Landuyt, K.L.; Yoshida, Y.; Hirata, I.; Snauwaert, J.; De Munck, J.; Okazaki, M.; Suzuki, K.; Lambrechts, P.; Van Meerbeek, B. Influence of the chemical structure of functional monomers on their adhesive performance. J. Dent. Res. 2008, 87, 757–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Li, N.; Nikaido, T.; Takagaki, T.; Sadr, A.; Makishi, P.; Chen, J.; Tagami, J. The role of functional monomers in bonding to enamel: acid-base resistant zone and bonding performance. J. Dent. 2010, 38, 722–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Yoshihara, K.; Nagaoka, N.; Okihara, T.; Kuroboshi, M.; Hayakawa, S.; Maruo, Y.; Nishigawa, G.; De Munck, J.; Yoshida, Y.; Van Meerbeek, B. Functional monomer impurity affects adhesive performance. Dent. Mater. 2015, 31, 1493–1501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Iwai, H.; Nishiyama, N. Effect of calcium salt of functional monomer on bonding performance. J. Dent. Res. 2012, 91, 1043–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Feitosa, V.P.; Ogliari, F.A.; Van Meerbeek, B.; Watson, T.F.; Yoshihara, K.; Ogliari, A.O.; Sinhoreti, M.A.; Correr, A.B.; Cama, G.; Sauro, S. Can the hydrophilicity of functional monomers affect chemical interaction? J. Dent. Res. 2014, 93, 201–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Fukegawa, D.; Hayakawa, S.; Yoshida, Y.; Suzuki, K.; Osaka, A.; Van Meerbeek, B. Chemical interaction of phosphoric acid ester with hydroxyapatite. J. Dent. Res. 2006, 85, 941–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Feitosa, V.P.; Sauro, S.; Ogliari, F.A.; Ogliari, A.O.; Yoshihara, K.; Zanchi, C.H.; Correr-Sobrinho, L.; Sinhoreti, M.A.; Correr, A.B.; Watson, T.F.; et al. Impact of hydrophilicity and length of spacer chains on the bonding of functional monomers. Dent. Mater. 2014, 30, e317–e323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Salz, U.; Mucke, A.; Zimmermann, J.; Tay, F.R.; Pashley, D.H. pKa value and buffering capacity of acidic monomers commonly used in self-etching primers. J. Adhes. Dent. 2006, 8, 143–150. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  17. Moher, D.; Shamseer, L.; Clarke, M.; Ghersi, D.; Liberati, A.; Petticrew, M.; Shekelle, P.; Stewart, L.A. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst. Rev. 2015, 4, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  18. Yoshihara, K.; Yoshida, Y.; Hayakawa, S.; Nagaoka, N.; Irie, M.; Ogawa, T.; Van Landuyt, K.L.; Osaka, A.; Suzuki, K.; Minagi, S.; et al. Nanolayering of phosphoric acid ester monomer on enamel and dentin. Acta Biomater. 2011, 7, 3187–3195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Yoshida, Y.; Yoshihara, K.; Nagaoka, N.; Hayakawa, S.; Torii, Y.; Ogawa, T.; Osaka, A.; Meerbeek, B.V. Self-assembled Nano-layering at the Adhesive interface. J. Dent. Res. 2012, 91, 376–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Yoshihara, K.; Yoshida, Y.; Nagaoka, N.; Hayakawa, S.; Okihara, T.; De Munck, J.; Maruo, Y.; Nishigawa, G.; Minagi, S.; Osaka, A.; et al. Adhesive interfacial interaction affected by different carbon-chain monomers. Dent. Mater. 2013, 29, 888–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Hiraishi, N.; Tochio, N.; Kigawa, T.; Otsuki, M.; Tagami, J. Role of 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate in the interaction of dental monomers with collagen studied by saturation transfer difference NMR. J. Dent. 2014, 42, 484–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Yokota, Y.; Nishiyama, N. Determination of molecular species of calcium salts of MDP produced through decalcification of enamel and dentin by MDP-based one-step adhesive. Dent. Mater. J. 2015, 34, 270–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  23. Matsui, N.; Takagaki, T.; Sadr, A.; Ikeda, M.; Ichinose, S.; Nikaido, T.; Tagami, J. The role of MDP in a bonding resin of a two-step self-etching adhesive system. Dent. Mater. J. 2015, 34, 227–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  24. Nurrohman, H.; Nikaido, T.; Takagaki, T.; Sadr, A.; Ichinose, S.; Tagami, J. Apatite crystal protection against acid-attack beneath resin-dentin interface with four adhesives: TEM and crystallography evidence. Dent. Mater. 2012, 28, e89–e98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Guan, R.; Takagaki, T.; Matsui, N.; Sato, T.; Burrow, M.F.; Palamara, J.; Nikaido, T.; Tagami, J. Dentin bonding performance using Weibull statistics and evaluation of acid-base resistant zone formation of recently introduced adhesives. Dent. Mater. J. 2016, 35, 684–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  26. Nikaido, T.; Nurrohman, H.; Takagaki, T.; Sadr, A.; Ichinose, S.; Tagami, J. Nanoleakage in Hybrid Layer and Acid-Base Resistant Zone at the Adhesive/Dentin Interface. Microsc. Microanal. 2015, 21, 1271–1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Hayakawa, T.; Kikutake, K.; Nemoto, K. Influence of self-etching primer treatment on the adhesion of resin composite to polished dentin and enamel. Dent. Mater. 1998, 14, 99–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Inoue, S.; Koshiro, K.; Yoshida, Y.; De Munck, J.; Nagakane, K.; Suzuki, K.; Sano, H.; Van Meerbeek, B. Hydrolytic stability of self-etch adhesives bonded to dentin. J. Dent. Res. 2005, 84, 1160–1164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Fujita, K.; Ma, S.; Aida, M.; Maeda, T.; Ikemi, T.; Hirata, M.; Nishiyama, N. Effect of reacted acidic monomer with calcium on bonding performance. J. Dent. Res. 2011, 90, 607–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Harnirattisai, C.; Roengrungreang, P.; Rangsisiripaiboon, U.; Senawongse, P. Shear and micro-shear bond strengths of four self-etching adhesives measured immediately and 24 hours after application. Dent. Mater. J. 2012, 31, 779–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  31. Takahashi, H. Effect of calcium salt of 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate produced on the bond durability of one-step self-etch adhesive. Dent. Mater. J. 2014, 33, 394–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Anchieta, R.B.; Machado, L.S.; Martini, A.P.; Santos, P.H.; Giannini, M.; Janal, M.; Tovar, N.; Sundfeld, R.H.; Rocha, E.P.; Coelho, P.G. Effect of long-term storage on nanomechanical and morphological properties of dentin-adhesive interfaces. Dent. Mater. 2015, 31, 141–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Munoz, M.A.; Luque-Martinez, I.; Malaquias, P.; Hass, V.; Reis, A.; Campanha, N.H.; Loguercio, A.D. In Vitro Longevity of Bonding Properties of Universal Adhesives to Dentin. Oper. Dent. 2015, 40, 282–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Thanatvarakorn, O.; Prasansuttiporn, T.; Takahashi, M.; Thittaweerat, S.; Foxton, R.M.; Ichinose, S.; Tagami, J.; Nakajima, M. Effect of Scrubbing Technique with Mild Self-etching Adhesives on Dentin Bond Strengths and Nanoleakage Expression. J. Adhes. Dent. 2016, 18, 197–204. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  35. Wang, R.; Shi, Y.; Li, T.; Pan, Y.; Cui, Y.; Xia, W. Adhesive interfacial characteristics and the related bonding performance of four self-etching adhesives with different functional monomers applied to dentin. J. Dent. 2017, 62, 72–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Chen, C.; Niu, L.N.; Xie, H.; Zhang, Z.Y.; Zhou, L.Q.; Jiao, K.; Chen, J.H.; Pashley, D.H.; Tay, F.R. Bonding of universal adhesives to dentine—Old wine in new bottles? J. Dent. 2015, 43, 525–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Farias, D.C.S.; de Andrada, M.A.C.; Boushell, L.W.; Walter, R. Assessment of the initial and aged dentin bond strength of universal adhesives. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2016, 70, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Tsuchiya, K.; Takamizawa, T.; Barkmeier, W.W.; Tsubota, K.; Tsujimoto, A.; Berry, T.P.; Erickson, R.L.; Latta, M.A.; Miyazaki, M. Effect of a functional monomer (MDP) on the enamel bond durability of single-step self-etch adhesives. Eur. J. Oral Sci. 2016, 124, 96–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Tsujimoto, A.; Barkmeier, W.W.; Takamizawa, T.; Watanabe, H.; Johnson, W.W.; Latta, M.A.; Miyazaki, M. Comparison between universal adhesives and two-step self-etch adhesives in terms of dentin bond fatigue durability in self-etch mode. Eur. J. Oral Sci. 2017, 125, 215–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Hass, V.; Abuna, G.; Feitosa, V.P.; Martini, E.C.; Sinhoreti, M.A.; Carvalho, R.F.; Bandéca, M.; Sauro, S.; Loguercio, A.D. Self-Etching Enamel Bonding Using Acidic Functional Monomers with Different-length Carbon Chains and Hydrophilicity. J. Adhes. Dent. 2017, 19, 497–505. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  41. Hoshika, S.; Kameyama, A.; Suyama, Y.; De Munck, J.; Sano, H.; Van Meerbeek, B. GPDM- and 10-MDP-based Self-etch Adhesives Bonded to Bur-cut and Uncut Enamel—“Immediate” and “Aged” µTBS. J. Adhes. Dent. 2018, 20, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  42. Mine, A.; De Munck, J.; Cardoso, M.V.; Van Landuyt, K.L.; Poitevin, A.; Van Ende, A.; Matsumoto, M.; Yoshida, Y.; Kuboki, T.; Yatani, H.; et al. Dentin-smear remains at self-etch adhesive interface. Dent. Mater. 2014, 30, 1147–1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Van Meerbeek, B.; Yoshihara, K.; Yoshida, Y.; Mine, A.; De Munck, J.; Van Landuyt, K.L. State of the art of self-etch adhesives. Dent. Mater. 2011, 27, 17–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Leal, F.B.; Madruga, F.C.; Prochnow, E.P.; Lima, G.S.; Ogliari, F.A.; Piva, E.; Moraes, R. Effect of acidic monomer concentration on the dentin bond stability of self-etch adhesives. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2011, 31, 571–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wang, X.M.; Wang, C.Y.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, Z.L.; Fu, B.P.; Hannig, M. Influence of priming time and primer’s concentrations on bovine enamel bond strengths. J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 2013, 27, 2558–2570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hiraishi, N.; Tochio, N.; Kigawa, T.; Otsuki, M.; Tagami, J. Monomer-collagen interactions studied by saturation transfer difference NMR. J. Dent. Res. 2013, 92, 284–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Yokota, Y.; Fujita, K.N.; Uchida, R.; Aida, E.; Aoki, N.T.; Aida, M.; Nishiyama, N. Quantitative Evaluation of MDP-Ca Salt and DCPD after Application of an MDP-based One-step Self-etching Adhesive on Enamel and Dentin. J. Adhes. Dent. 2016, 18, 205–213. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  48. Tian, F.C.; Wang, X.Y.; Huang, Q.; Niu, L.N.; Mitchell, J.; Zhang, Z.Y.; Prananik, C.; Zhang, L.; Chen, J.H.; Breschi, L.; et al. Effect of nanolayering of calcium salts of phosphoric acid ester monomers on the durability of resin-dentin bonds. Acta Biomater. 2016, 38, 190–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Yoshihara, K.; Yoshida, Y.; Hayakawa, S.; Nagaoka, N.; Torii, Y.; Osaka, A.; Suzuki, K.; Minagi, S.; Van Meerbeek, B.; Van Landuyt, K.L. Self-etch monomer-calcium salt deposition on dentin. J. Dent. Res. 2011, 90, 602–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Hanabusa, M.; Yoshihara, K.; Yoshida, Y.; Okihara, T.; Yamamoto, T.; Momoi, Y.; Van Meerbeek, B. Interference of functional monomers with polymerization efficiency of adhesives. Eur. J. Oral Sci. 2016, 124, 204–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Yazdi, F.M.; Moosavi, H.; Atai, M.; Zeynali, M. Dentin bond strength and degree of conversion evaluation of experimental self-etch adhesive systems. J. Clin. Exp. Dent. 2015, 7, e243–e249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Feitosa, V.P.; Sauro, S.; Ogliari, F.A.; Stansbury, J.W.; Carpenter, G.H.; Watson, T.F.; Sinhoreti, M.A.; Correr, A.B. The role of spacer carbon chain in acidic functional monomers on the physicochemical properties of self-etch dental adhesives. J. Dent. 2014, 42, 565–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  53. Fujita-Nakajima, K.; Aoki-Tabei, N.; Arita, A.; Nishiyama, N. NMR study on the demineralization mechanism of the enamel and dentin surfaces in MDP-based all-in-one adhesive. Dent. Mater. J. 2018, 37, 693–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  54. Kakuda, S.; Fu, J.; Nakaoki, Y.; Ikeda, T.; Tanaka, T.; Sano, H. Improved long-term bonding performance of an experimental all-in-one adhesive. Dent. Mater. J. 2013, 32, 600–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  55. Tsuchiya, H.; Tsubota, K.; Iwasa, M.; Ando, S.; Miyazaki, M.; Platt, J.A. Influence of Adhesive Application Time on Enamel Bond Strength of Single-step Self-etch Adhesive Systems. Oper. Dent. 2010, 35, 77–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  56. Mine, A.; De Munck, J.; Cardoso, M.V.; Van Landuyt, K.L.; Poitevin, A.; Kuboki, T.; Yoshida, Y.; Suzuki, K.; Van Meerbeek, B. Enamel-Smear Compromises Bonding by Mild Self-Etch Adhesives. J. Dent. Res. 2010, 89, 1505–1509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Reis, A.; Leite, T.M.; Matte, K.; Michels, R.; Amaral, R.C.; Geraldeli, S.; Loguercio, A.D. Improving clinical retention of one-step self-etching adhesive systems, with an additional hydrophobic adhesive layer. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2009, 140, 877–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Sato, T.; Takagaki, T.; Matsui, N.; Hamba, H.; Sadr, A.; Nikaido, T.; Tagami, J. Morphological Evaluation of the Adhesive/Enamel Interfaces of Two-step Self-etching Adhesives and Multimode One-bottle Self-etching Adhesives. J. Adhes. Dent. 2016, 18, 223–229. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  59. Beltrami, R.; Chiesa, M.; Scribante, A.; Allegretti, J.; Poggio, C. Comparison of shear bond strength of universal adhesives on etched and nonetched enamel. J. Appl. Biomater. Funct. Mater. 2016, 14, E78–E83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Fujita Nakajima, K.; Nikaido, T.; Arita, A.; Hirayama, S.; Nishiyama, N. Demineralization capacity of commercial 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate-based all-in-one adhesive. Dent. Mater. 2018, 34, 1555–1565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Teshima, M. Effect of the concentration of water in an MDP-based all-in-one adhesive on the efficacy of smear layer removal and on dentin bonding performance. Dent. Mater. J. 2018, 37, 685–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  62. Miyazaki, M.; Tsujimoto, A.; Tsubota, K.; Takamizawa, T.; Kurokawa, H.; Platt, J.A. Important compositional characteristics in the clinical use of adhesive systems. J. Oral Sci. 2014, 56, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  63. Iwai, H.; Fujita, K.; Iwai, H.; Ikemi, T.; Goto, H.; Aida, M.; Nishiyama, N. Development of MDP-based one-step self-etch adhesive -Effect of additional 4-META on bonding performance. Dent. Mater. J. 2013, 32, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Fujita Nakajima, K.; Nikaido, T.; Francis Burrow, M.; Iwasaki, T.; Tanimoto, Y.; Hirayama, S.; Nishiyama, N. Effect of the demineralisation efficacy of MDP utilized on the bonding performance of MDP-based all-in-one adhesives. J. Dent. 2018, 77, 59–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Kirihara, M.; Inoue, G.; Nikaido, T.; Ikeda, M.; Sadr, A.; Tagami, J. Effect of fluoride concentration in adhesives on morphology of acid-base resistant zones. Dent. Mater. J. 2013, 32, 578–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  66. Yoshida, Y.; Yoshihara, K.; Hayakawa, S.; Nagaoka, N.; Okihara, T.; Matsumoto, T.; Minagi, S.; Osaka, A.; Van Landuyt, K.; Van Meerbeek, B. HEMA inhibits interfacial nano-layering of the functional monomer MDP. J. Dent. Res. 2012, 91, 1060–1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Zhou, J.; Wurihan; Shibata, Y.; Tanaka, R.; Zhang, Z.; Zheng, K.; Li, Q.; Ikeda, S.; Gao, P.; Miyazaki, T. Quantitative/qualitative analysis of adhesive-dentin interface in the presence of 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2019, 92, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Feitosa, V.P.; Pomacondor-Hernandez, C.; Ogliari, F.A.; Leal, F.; Correr, A.B.; Sauro, S. Chemical interaction of 10-MDP (methacryloyloxi-decyl-dihydrogen-phosphate) in zinc-doped self-etch adhesives. J. Dent. 2014, 42, 359–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Garcia, M.G.; Poskus, L.T.; Hass, V.; Amaral, C.M.; Noronha-Filho, J.D.; Silva, E.M.D. Effect of Calcium Hydroxide on Bonding Performance of an Experimental Self-etch Adhesive. J. Adhes. Dent. 2018, 20, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Kim, E.C.; Park, H.; Lee, S.I.; Kim, S.Y. Effect of the Acidic Dental Resin Monomer 10-methacryloyloxydecyl Dihydrogen Phosphate on Odontoblastic Differentiation of Human Dental Pulp Cells. Basic Clin. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 2015, 117, 340–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  71. Putzeys, E.; Duca, R.C.; Coppens, L.; Vanoirbeek, J.; Godderis, L.; Van Meerbeek, B.; Van Landuyt, K.L. In-vitro transdentinal diffusion of monomers from adhesives. J. Dent. 2018, 75, 91–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Teshima, I. Degradation of 10-Methacryloyloxydecyl Dihydrogen Phosphate. J. Dent. Res. 2010, 89, 1281–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Aida, M.; Odaki, M.; Fujita, K.; Kitagawa, T.; Teshima, I.; Suzuki, K.; Nishiyama, N. Degradation-stage effect of self-etching primer on dentin bond durability. J. Dent. Res. 2009, 88, 443–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Search work-flow diagram.
Figure 1. Search work-flow diagram.
Materials 12 00790 g001
Table 1. PICO strategy.
Table 1. PICO strategy.
P (Problem)Permanent teeth with need for restoration.
I (Intervention)Direct restoration with composite, using adhesives with 10-MDP.
C (Comparison)Adhesives with different functional monomers other than 10-MDP.
Different adhesives with 10-MDP monomer.
O (Outcome)Capacity to create an acid-base resistant zone (ABRZ).
Formation of nano-layered structures.
Adhesive stability.
Table 2. Research strategy used.
Table 2. Research strategy used.
DatabaseSearch Strategy
PubMed(“methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate” OR “10-MDP” OR “Functional monomer*”) AND (“dental cements [Mesh]” OR “adhesive*” OR “bond*”).
Cochrane Library(“methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate” OR “10-MDP” OR “functional monomer*”) AND (“adhesive*” OR “bond*”).
Web of ScienceTS = (“methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate” OR “10-MDP” OR “FUNCTIONAL MONOMER*”) AND TS = (“adhesive*” OR “bond*”).
Embase(‘methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate’:ti,ab,kw OR ‘10-mdp’:ti,ab,kw OR’functional monomer*’:ti,ab,kw) AND (‘adhesive*’:ti,ab,kw OR ‘bond*’:ti,ab,kw).
Table 3. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Table 3. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Inclusion CriteriaStudies on permanent teeth
Direct restorations
Dental adhesives
Exclusion CriteriaStudies on deciduous teeth
Indirect restorations
Dental cements
Adhesion to metal alloys, ceramics, posts
Plaque inhibitors/Antibacterial activity
Deproteinized dentin
Table 4. Formation of nano-layered structures (MDP-Ca salts).
Table 4. Formation of nano-layered structures (MDP-Ca salts).
Author, YearGroupsResults
Yoshihara et al., 2011 [18]T1*: mixed solution containing 15% 10-MDP
C*: Clearfil SE Bond primer (Kuraray)
Nano-layering was stronger on dentin than on enamel;
Rubbing the primer for 20 s enhanced nano-layering;
Nano-layering was reduced with lower [MDP]
Yoshida et al., 2012 [19]T1*: Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray)
T2*: Scotchbond Universal (3M ESPE)
Hybrid layer: T1* thicker than T2*;
T1*—at the top of the hybrid layer, regular longitudinally layered structures, often curved;
T2*—nano-layering near the tubule orifices where the adhesive infiltrated residual smear.
Yoshihara et al., 2013 [20]T1: 2-MEP
T2: 6-MHP
T3*: 10-MDP
T4: Adper Easy Bond (3M ESPE)
T5*: All-Bond Universal (Bisco)
T6*: Clearfil S3 Bond (Kuraray)
T7*: Scotchbond Universal (3M ESPE)
T1—Results not obtainable (failure at preparation);
T2—hybrid layer thinner than T3 and HAp-rich;
T3*—thicker hybrid layer, intense nano-layering through the whole adhesive layer;
Nano-layering formation for all 10-MDP based adhesives;
T4 (6-MHP) only formed some nano-layering;
In contrast to T4, the 3 commercially available 10-MDP containing adhesives revealed the 3 characteristic nano-layering peaks (XRD) already after 20 s interaction.
Hiraishi et al., 2014 [21] T1*: 10-MDP
T2: 4-META
10-MDP long chain makes it quite hydrophobic; Atelocollagen and MDP tend to aggregate in water; Reduction in the STD intensity when HEMA was added to T1*, resulting in a weak interaction with atelocollagen.
Yokota et al., 2015 [22]T1*: Experimental adhesiveSeveral types of MDP-Ca salts and amorphous DCPD were developed during decalcification;
Enamel and dentin produced MCS-MM and MD;
Dentin produced DCS-MD.
Tian et al., 2016 [6]T1*: 5% 10-MDP primer
T2*: 10% 10-MDP primer
T3*: 15% 10-MDP primer
T4*: Adhese Universal (Ivoclar-Vivadent)
T5*: All-Bond Universal (Bisco)
T6*: Clearfil S3 Bond Plus (Kuraray)
T7*: Clearfil SE Bond 2 (Kuraray)
T8*: Clearfil Universal Bond (Kuraray)
T9*: G-Premio Bond (GC Corp.)
T10*: Scotchbond Universal (3M ESPE)
Nano-layering became sparser with reduction in [MDP] (T3* > T1*, T2*);
Nano-layering was identified in limited sites when using T6* and T7*;
T4*, T5*, T8*, T9*, T10*: no nano-layered structures were identified;
T7*: limited and less well-organized patterns of nano-layering when compared to pure 10-MDP.
Yaguchi, 2017 [5]T1*: 25.6 mg
T2*: 49.9 mg
T3*: 80.5 mg
T4*: 116.1 mg
(quantity of 10-MDP in 1g of the experimental adhesive)
↑ [10-MDP] on enamel led to ↑ production of MCS-MD and ↓ production of MCS-MM, and then it leveled;
Dentin produced ↑ [MCS-MD] and [DCS-MD] than enamel did (p < 0.05); ↑ [10-MDP] on dentin led to ↑ production ratios of both MCS-MM and MCS-MD;
Dentin showed a greater production of MDP-Ca salts than enamel did (p < 0.05); Dentin produced greater amounts of mono- and di-calcium salts of the MDP dimer that were able to form nano-layered structures; dentin and enamel predominantly produced a mono-calcium salt.
C: control group; DCS: di-calcium salt; DCPD: dicalcium phosphate dihydrate; HAp: hydroxyapatite; MCS: mono-calcium salt; MD: MDP dimer; MM: MDP monomer; STD: saturation transfer difference; T: test group; TEM: transmission electron microscopy; XRD: X-ray Diffraction; *: 10-MDP containing adhesive system/experimental adhesive.
Table 5. Acid-Base Resistant Zone (ABRZ).
Table 5. Acid-Base Resistant Zone (ABRZ).
Author, YearGroupsResults
Na li et al., 2010 [10] C*: 10-MDP in primer and bond (Clearfil SE Bond, Kuraray)
T1*: 10-MDP (primer) and
Phenyl-P (bond)
T2*: Phenyl-P (primer) and
10-MDP (bond)
T3: Phenyl-P in primer and bond
Enamel ABRZ thickness (µm): C*: 0.5; T1*: <0.2; T2*: 1; T3: <0.1.
T1* ABRZ morphology similar to C* but sparser distribution of crystals; T2* crystals with ↑ length, but similar width (ABRZ), with clear intercrystallite spaces. T3 had low capacity to create an ABRZ and presence of funnel-shaped erosions; Adhesive interface produced by 10-MDP containing adhesive systems remained after acid-base challenge.
Nikaido et al., 2011 [2] T1*: 10-MDP
T2: 3D-SR
T3: 4-META
(similar compositions, different functional monomers, all universal adhesives)
Dentin ABRZ thickness: T1* > T2 > T3; Enamel ABRZ is very thin, compared to dentin ABRZ; Enamel ABRZ thickness < 0.5 µm in all groups but for T1* it appeared to be thicker. Dentin ABRZ formed under the hybrid layer, while enamel ABRZ was created along the interface between adhesive and enamel; ABRZ was confirmed at both enamel and dentin; it was influenced by the functional monomer contained in the adhesive system; Funnel-shaped erosion found at bonding interface between enamel and outer lesion in T3.
Nurrohman et al., 2012 [24]C: Scothbond multi-purpose (3M ESPE)
T2*: Clearfil photo bond (Kuraray)
T3*: Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray)
T4: Adper Easy Bond (3M ESPE)
C: 4 µm HL and some regions with absence of a crystalline phase; deep funnel-shaped lesion into intact dentin; similar lesion in T2*;
T2*: 5 µm HL and regions with low density and partially dissolved apatite crystals;
T3*: 1 µm HL and denser overall crystallite arrangement in the base of the HL; approximately 0.5 µm thick ABRZ with densely arranged crystals and no funnel-shaped lesions in all specimens of this group;
T4: partially demineralize HL, approximately 0.5 µm; funnel-shaped lesions along the apatite-rich zone.
Matsui et al., 2015 [23] C*: Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray)
T1*: Experimental adhesive (10-MDP in primer)
Dentin ABRZ formed beneath the HL in both groups;
Funnel-shaped erosion observed at the junction of dentin and bonding layer in T1*;
Excluding 10-MDP from the bonding resin resulted in ↓ resistance against acid attack at ABRZ.
Nikaido et al., 2015 [26] T1*: Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray)
T2*: Clearfil Bond SE One (Kuraray)
T3: G-Bond Plus (GC)
T3 ABRZ was the thinnest (p < 0.05), and had the highest NL (p < 0.05);
Funnel-shaped lesion not observed for T1*.
Guan et al., 2016 [25] T1*: Clearfil SE Bond 2 (Kuraray)
T2: Optibond XTR (KERR)
T3*: Scotchbond Universal (3M ESPE), applied as SE, ERM (Moist) and ERD (Dry)
ABRZ at the front of demineralization for SE groups;
Slope at bottom of outer lesion in T2;
T3*SE: funnel-shaped lesion at bottom of outer lesion;
T3*ERM and T3*ERD: 5 µm HL without appearance of ABRZ.
ABRZ: acid-base resistant zone; C: control group; ER: etch-and-rinse; HL: hybrid layer; NL: nanoleakage; SE: self-etch; T: test group; *: 10-MDP containing adhesive system/experimental adhesive.
Table 6. Adhesive stability.
Table 6. Adhesive stability.
Author, YearGroupsResultsComments
Hayakawa et al., 1998 [27] T1: 5% Phenyl-P + 60% H2O
T2: 10% Phenyl-P + 55% H2O
T3: 20% Phenyl-P + 45% H2O
T4: 30% Phenyl-P + 35% H2O
T5*: 5% 10-MDP + 60% H2O
T6*: 10% 10-MDP + 55% H2O
T7*: 20% 10-MDP + 45% H2O
T8*: 30% 10-MDP + 35% H2O
Dentin T3, T4—30 s treatment: ↑TBS than T1 and T2 (p < 0.05);
Dentin T8*—15 s treatment: ↑adhesion than T1, T2, T3 (p < 0.05);
Dentin T8*—60 s treatment: ↑adhesion than T5*;
Different patterns after treatment with T1/T4 and T5*/T8*.
Adhesives partially dissolved the smear layer which restricted the resin penetration. Monomers could infiltrate into the dentin to create the hybrid layer, resulting in a tight adhesion to dentin; Insufficient infiltration of monomers into the dentin, preserving more of the smear layer, resulted in lower BS.
Inoue et al., 2005 [28] T1*: Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray)
T2: Unifil Bond (GC)
T3: Clearfil Liner Bond II (Kuraray)
T1*: µTBS to dentin after 100,000 thermocycles = 0 thermocycles;
T2: ↓µTBS (41%) after 100,000 thermocycles;
T3: ↓µTBS (48%) after 30,000 and 100,000 thermocycles;
HAp crystals remained at the hybrid layer (T1* > T2 > T3).
Long-term durability of the dentin-adhesive interface of two-step self-etching adhesives differed, depending on the particular adhesive; T1* showed no signs of degradation in bond strength and interfacial ultrastructure.
Na Li et al., 2010 [10]C*: Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray)
T1*: 10-MDP (primer) and
Phenyl-P (bond)
T2*: Phenyl-P (primer) and
10-MDP (bond)
T3: Phenyl-P in primer and bond
C*: ↑BS than the other groups (p < 0.005);
T1*, T2*, T3: no differences in BS (p > 0.05); Significant distribution of failure modes among groups (p < 0.05);
C*, T1*, T2*: adhesive and cohesive failure, while major failure of T3 was adhesive failure;
Micro-shear bond-strength values showed ↑bond strength in C (p < 0.005). Among test groups, no significant difference was found.
Fujita et al., 2011 [29] T1*: Clearfil Tri-S Bond (Kuraray)
T2*: Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray)
T2*: ↑ [reacted 10-MDP] (16.1%) compared to T1 (9.2%);
T1*: blank outline of the enamel prisms; dentinal tubes were widened, with deposits on the intertubular dentin, without exposure of collagen fibrils;
T2*: typical etching pattern on enamel; dentinal tubes were more widened and blocked by precipitates, with collagen fibrils exposed; conditioning of enamel and dentin allowed enhancement in the initial BS (p < 0.05); a reduction was observed in conditioned dentin after 20,000 thermocycles.
Superior BS of T2* correlated to the demineralized amount of tooth apatite by 10-MDP;
Unreacted 10-MDP polymer within the adhesive layer did not ↓ the bond strength, despite application of 20,000 thermocycles.
Harnirattisai et al., 2012 [30] T1*: Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray)
T2*: Clearfil Tri-S Bond
(Kuraray)
T3: G-Bond (GC)
T4: i-Bond (Kulzer)
(T2, T3, T4: all-in-one adhesives)
Bond strength at 10 min was lower than that at 24 h for all adhesives;
T1*: ↑bond strength (10 min and 24 h);
SBt: ↑adhesive failure (66.04–97.44%) for all-in-one adhesives, compared to T1* (10 min and 24 h);
µSBt: ↑cohesive failures in resin;
µSBt: T1* > T4 > T2* and T1 = T3.
Dentin cohesive failure was found to be lower in the µSBt of T1 at 24 h;
µSBt results in divergency of behavior between systems, not seen with SBt;
Iwai et al., 2012 [12] T1*: 0 mg
T2*: 25.6 mg
T3*: 49.9 mg
T4*: 80.5 mg
T5*: 116.1 mg
(quantity of 10-MDP in 1g of experimental adhesive)
↑ [10-MDP] resulted in ↑amounts of MDP-Ca salts, which resulted in ↑BS for enamel and dentin; Further ↑ in the amount of MDP-Ca salt resulted in ↓BS.
Zhang et al., 2013 [8] C: Durafill Bond (Heraeus Kulzer)
T1*: MDP/HEMA/Bis-GMA (1:1:1) (Kuraray)
T2*: MDP/HEMA/Bis-GMA (2:1:1) (Kuraray)
T3*: MDP/Bis-GMA (1:1) (Kuraray)
µTBS: C lower than test groups (24 h and 1 year water-storage) (p < 0.05); No differences between test groups (p > 0.05);
C: clearly visible enamel HAp crystallites partly and adhesive mixed with fractured HAp crystallites partly (solely micromechanical interlocking at the interface);
Test groups: Faintly visible enamel HAp crystallites partly.
Etched enamel surfaces treated with the MDP-containing primers revealed that the etched enamel surfaces were covered by a layer of variable network-like/fibril-like HAp crystallites;
C: cannot chemically react with HAp
Feitosa et al., 2014 [13]T1: MEP
T2*: MDP
T3: MDDP
T4: CAP-P
T5: MTEP
T2*, T3: lowest free-calcium concentrations (p < 0.001); T1 had the highest;
Monomer-Ca salt on dentin present in all groups;
T2*, T3: ↑µTBS than T1, T4, T5 (p < 0.05).
Formation of monomer-Ca salts and initial BS were influenced by the length and hydrophilicity of the spacer chain of functional monomers.
Feitosa et al., 2014 [15] T1: MEP
T2*: MDP
T3: MDDP
T4: CAP-P
T5: MTEP
T1: lowest monomer-calcium formation (p < 0.05);
T2*, T3: ↑µTBS than those of T1, T4, T5;
After 1-year aging: drop in µTBS was observed for T5 (enamel and dentin), T1 (enamel) and T4 (enamel) (p < 0.005);
T5: highest micro-permeability;
T1, T4, T5: ↑NL after aging.
Length and hydrophilicity of the spacer chain influenced the monomer-calcium salt formation, the dentin/enamel bonding performance, the interfacial micro-permeability and NL.
Takahashi, 2014 [31] T1*: 0 g;
T2*: 3.0 g;
T3*: 6.0 g;
T4*: 10.0 g;
T5*: 15.0 g.
(quantity of 10-MDP in 1 g of the experimental adhesive)
T1*: thermocycling led to a ↓ in the BS, with no MDP-Ca salt produced (p < 0.05); ↑ of MDP-Ca salts to above:
-
37.2 mg/g: ↓ dentin BS during thermocycling;
-
57.9 mg/g: difference in dentin BS before and after thermocycling (p < 0.05);
-
57.9 mg/g: dentin exhibited more changes in the surface morphology than enamel and in the type of fracture mode during thermocycling;
↑ of MDP-Ca salts changed the morphology of the fractured enamel surface and ↑ the number of specimens that had less than half of the adhesive remaining at the enamel or dentin surface.
Anchieta et al., 2015 [32] C: Scotchbond Multi-Purpose (3M ESPE)
T1*: Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray)
T2: One Up Bond F (Tokuyama)
T3: Adper Easy One (3M ESPE)
T4: Filtek LS adhesive (3M ESPE)
C: thickest hybrid layer (p < 0.05); longest resin tags ( = T2) (p < 0.05);
T1*: thinnest hybrid layer; highest elastic modulus of the hybrid layer (p < 0.05);
T2: thinnest adhesive layer (p < 0.05); highest degree of silver impregnation at 24 h (p < 0.05);
T3, T4: highest infiltration (p < 0.05).
T4: thickest adhesive layer;
Storage for 12 months ↑ silver impregnation for all groups (p < 0.05), except for T1* (p > 0.05);
↓Elastic modulus along time in all groups (p < 0.05);
↑ NL over time except for T1*.
Partially demineralized dentin below the hybrid layer occurred for all adhesives; After 12 months storage, degradation occurred at the DAI in all groups and the intensity of degradation differed depending on the type of adhesive used; 10-MDP containing adhesive system (T1*) DAI formed showed the best stability among all adhesive systems.
Matsui et al., 2015 [23]T1*: Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray)
T2*: Experimental adhesive with 10-MDP primer
T1* µTBS > T2* µTBS without thermocycling (p < 0.001); after thermocycling: T2* > T1* (p < 0.001);
T2* µTBS remained stable after thermocycling (p < 0.001);
UTS: T2* > T1* in all evaluation periods; ↓ UTS after storage in water.
Muñoz et al., 2015 [33]C1: Adper Single Bond 2 (3M ESPE)
C2*: Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray)
T1: Peak Universal Adhesive System (Ultradent Products Inc.)
T2*: Scotchbond Universal Adhesive (3M ESPE)
T3*: All Bond Universal (Bisco)
C1, T1, T2 and T3 as ER
C2, T1, T2 and T3 as SE
Most of the specimens showed adhesive or adhesive/mixed failures;
T1 (SE) and T1 (ER) showed the ↑ immediate µTBS, similar to C1, C2* (p > 0.05) with a ↓ after 6-months of water storage (p > 0.05);
T2* (SE), T2* (ER), T3* (SE), T3* (ER): lower immediate µTBS, compared to C1, C2* (p < 0.05);
ER: only T3* had lower µTBS after 6-months (p < 0.05);
T1: highest NL at immediate time (p < 0.05), ↑ after 6 months (p < 0.05);
Universal adhesives demonstrated heterogenous behavior, since some adhesives diminished the bonding performance over the course of time.
Yoshihara et al., 2015 [11]Three 10-MDP molecules by different companies:
T1*: 83% purity
T2*: 90% purity
T3*: ↑% than T1 and T2
T1*: µTBS did not ↓ after 100,000 thermocycles, contrarily to T1* and T2*;
T3*: ↑Immediate µTBS than T1*, T2*;
No pre-testing failure recorded for T3*, but several failures happened with the “aged specimens” of T1* and T2*.
Differences in the ultrastructure of the hybrid layer were observed between the different monomers used.
Chen et al., 2015 [36] T1: Prime and Bond Elect (Dentsply)
T2*: Scotchbond Universal (3M ESPE)
T3*: All Bond Universal (Bisco)
T4*: Clearfil Universal Bond (Kuraray)
T5: Futurabond U (VOCO)
Comparisons between test groups were all significant (p < 0.01), except between T1/T2*, T1/T3*, T2*/T3*, T4*/T5;
T2* (p = 0.004), T4* (0.006) and T5 (p < 0.001) had different results between with and without thermocycling;
T1 and T3* were resistant to thermocycling (p > 0.01).
Farias et al., 2016 [37] T1*: Scotchbond Universal (3M ESPE)
T2*: All Bond Universal (Bisco)
T3: Optibond FL (Kerr)
T4: Adper Single Bond Plus (3M ESPE)
T5*: Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray)
T6: Adper Prompt L-Pop (3M ESPE)
Similar µTBS means, before and after thermocycling for T1*, T2*, T3, T4 (p < 005);
Before thermocycling: similar µTBS means between groups:
T1*/T2*ER/T3/T4/T5* (p < 0.05),
T1*SE/T2*SE/T3/T6(p < 0.05)
T1*SE/T2*SE/T3/T5* (p < 0.05).
After thermocycling: similar µTBS means between groups T1*/T2*ER/T3/T4/T5* and T1*SE/T2*SE/T3/T4.
Tsuchiya et al., 2016 [38] T1*: Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray)
T2: Experimental adhesive (equal to T1*, without MDP)
T1*: ↑SB (p < 0.05) with pre-etching, for same storage period; ↑SB at 6-months and 1-year storage; ↑SFS (p < 0.05) with pre-etching for same storage period;
↑SB for both test groups at 6 months storage.
Zhang et al., 2016 [1] T1*: All-Bond Universal (Bisco)
T2*: Clearfil Universal Bond (Kuraray)
T3: Futurabond U (VOCO)
T4: Prime&Bond Elect (Dentsply)
T5*: Scotchbond Universal (3M ESPE)
µTBS was affected by the bonding strategy and aging tests (p < 0.005);
12 months: ↑µTBS for T1* as ER (p < 0.001), while for the rest of the groups was ↑ when in SE mode (p < 0.001);
T1* to T5*: ↓µTBS when in ER mode (p < 0.001);
T1*, T2*, T3: ↓µTBS when in SE mode (p < 0.001);
T4, T5*: no changes in µTBS between 24 h and 12 months.
Universal adhesive systems with 10-MDP monomer did not show better performance than those without;
Bonds created in SE mode were more durable than those created in ER mode; With exception of bonds created by T4 and T5, universal adhesives at test were incapable of defying ageing.
Thanatvarakorn et al., 2016 [34]T1*: Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray)
T2*: Scotchbond Universal (3M ESPE)
T1*s, T2*s: applied with scrubbing technique
T1*ns, T2*ns: passively applied
T1*s did not affect µTBS (p > 0.05);
T2*s exhibited ↑µTBS than T2*ns (p < 0.05);
T2*ns: adhesive failure at adhesive interface was predominant and larger than in other groups;
T2*s had the highest etching ability, while T2*ns had the lowest;
T1*s and T2*s were free of NL.
Scrubbing technique not only improved immediate µTBS but also ↑ the stability of a one-step self-etching adhesive bond to dentin.
Guan et al., 2016 [25]T1*: Clearfil SE Bond 2 (Kuraray)
T2: Optibond XTR (KERR)
T3*: Scotchbond Universal (3M ESPE), applied as SE, ERM (Moist) and ERD (Dry)
↓ 24 h BS of ER than SE groups (p < 0.05);
5000 thermal cycles: ↓µTBS of T3*ERM (p = 0.001);
10,000 thermal cycles: T1* µTBS remained stable, T2 ↑ and all T3* ↓ (p < 0.05);
Immediate BS of T3*ERD was lower than other groups (p < 0.05);
10,000 thermal cycles: ↓BS on SE and ER (p < 0.05);
Tsujimoto et al., 2017 [39]T1*: Clearfil Universal Bond (Kuraray)
T2*: G-Premio Bond (GC)
T3*: Scotchbond Universal (3M ESPE)
T4*: Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray)
T5*: Clearfil SE Bond 2 (Kuraray)
T6: Optibond XTR (Kerr)
Initial BS: T6 > T4* > T5* > T3* > T1* > T2*;
SFS: T6 > T4* > T5* > T3* > T1* > T2*;
Initial BS of universal adhesives is influenced by the type of adhesive, but lower than that of two-step self-etching adhesive systems.
Wang et al., 2017 [35]T1*: Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray)
T2*: Scotchbond Universal (3M ESPE)
T3: Optibond XTR (Kerr)
T4: Adper Easy Bond (3M ESPE)
TF-XRD: T1* and T2* revealed production of 10-MDP-Ca salts; T2*: slightly shifted and ↓intensity; no detected peaks in T3 and T4;
SEM: T1*, T2*: after ethanol rinsing most of the adhesive was retained; T4: smear debris remained; T3: all of the hybrid layer was removed;
T1* and T2* µTBS stable before and after thermocycling (p > 0.05);
Dentin µTBS: T2* and T3 ↑ than T1* and T4 at 24 h; T4 ↓ after thermocycling and T3 after aging;
NL: T1 and T2—slight ↑ impregnation after thermocycling; T3 and T4: ↑ infiltration after thermocycling and in many cases the entire length of the hybrid layer was infiltrated.
Differences in T1* and T2* for TF-XRD analysis are related to the ratio of 10-MDP contained in each formulation;
T2* and T3 gained ↑ bonding strength even after aging than the traditional T1* and T4, although T3 showed ↑ NL after thermocycling.
BS: Bond strength; C: Control group; DAI: Dentin-adhesive interface; HAp: Hydroxyapatite; NL: Nanoleakage; NMR: NMR spectroscopy; SB: Shear bond; SBt: Shear bond test; SFS: Shear fatigue strength; T: Rest group; TBS: Tensile bond strength; TF-XRD: Thin-film X-ray diffraction; UTS: Ultimate tensile strength; µSB: Micro-shear bond; µSBt: Micro-shear bond test; µTBS: Micro-tensile bond strength; *: 10-MDP containing adhesive system/experimental adhesive.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Materials EISSN 1996-1944 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top