OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare the microtensile dentin bond strength (μTBS) and interfacial micromorphology of three universal adhesives.
METHODS: 96 human molars were assigned to three universal adhesives: Single Bond Universal (SBU), CLEARFIL Universal Bond Quick (UBQ), and RE-GEN Universal Adhesive (REGEN). Adhesives were applied in self-etch mode. SBU and REGEN were applied following the manufacturers\' instructions. UBQ was divided into two subgroups: one following the manufacturer\'s instructions (UBQ Short) and the other with an extended application time (UBQ Extended). Teeth were restored with nanohybrid resin composite. Specimens were divided into immediate and delayed subgroups. The delayed subgroups were stored for 6 months and subjected to 5000 thermocycles. μTBS was tested, and failure mode was analyzed. Interfacial micromorphology was assessed using a scanning electron microscope. The data were statistically analyzed (p⟨ 0.05).
RESULTS: The adhesive choice, aging, and their interaction significantly affected μTBS. SBU exhibited the highest immediate μTBS, comparable to UBQ (Extended) and REGEN, and significantly higher than UBQ (Short). In delayed testing, SBU outperformed the other adhesives.
CONCLUSIONS: Aging negatively affected the μTBS of UBQ and REGEN, while SBU wasn\'t affected. The quick application concept of UBQ deteriorated its μTBS compared to the extended application time.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of different adhesives and veneering resins on the shear bond strength (SBS) of polyetheretherketone (PEEK).
METHODS: A total of 138 PEEK specimens were randomly divided into 6 groups according to adhesive material application: Control (C, no application), Adhese Universal (A) (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein), Gluma Bond Universal (G) (Heraeus Kulzer, South Bend, IN, USA), G-PremioBOND (P) (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan), Single Bond Universal (S) (3M, Saint Paul, MN, USA) and visio.link (V) (Bredent, Senden, Germany). Each adhesive group was divided into two subgroups according to the type of veneering material: Estenia direct composite (D) and Gradia Plus indirect composite (IN) (both GC Corporation). After the veneering process, the specimens were aged by thermal cycling. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for SBS analysis (P < 0.05).
RESULTS: The highest SBS results were obtained in the VIN group, followed by the VD, PD, GIN, AIN, AD, SIN, SD, PIN, GD, CIN and CD groups, respectively (P = 0.001). There were no significant differences in terms of the type of veneering composite when the same adhesive was applied (P > 0.05), except for Gluma Bond Universal (P = 0.009). All the adhesives tested showed clinically acceptable SBS results.
CONCLUSIONS: Visio.link offered the highest adhesion to PEEK, whereas the tested universal adhesives may be used as an alternative to visio.link in clinical settings. It was determined that changing the veneer type has no statistical difference when the same adhesive material is used.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the microtensile bond strength (µTBS) and failure mode of 4 different universal adhesive systems (UAs) on human dentin.
METHODS: The study sectioned the occlusal thirds of 32 human third molars and divided them into 4 groups based on the adhesive system used. Group A: Palfique Universal Bond, Group B: Single Bond Universal, Group C: All-Bond Universal, and Group D: One Coat 7 Universal. The specimens underwent a 10,000-cycle thermocycling ageing process prior to testing (n = 32). Afterwards, 8 beams were obtained per group and subjected to µTBS testing using a digital universal testing machine at a speed of 1 mm/min. The microtensile bond strength values were analysed in Megapascals (MPa), and the failure mode was evaluated using a stereomicroscope. Welch\'s parametric ANOVA with robust variance and the Games-Howell post hoc test were used for µTBS comparisons, and Fisher\'s exact test was used to determine the association between adhesive type and failure mode. The significance level was set at P < .05.
RESULTS: Group D showed a significantly higher µTBS than groups A (P < .001) and B (P < .001), but no significant difference was observed with group C (P= .075). Furthermore, groups B and C showed significantly higher µTBS than group A (P< .001 and P < .001, respectively), but there was no significant difference between groups B and C (P = .132). Additionally, group A exhibited a significant association with an adhesive failure mode (P < .05), whereas groups B, C, and D were significantly associated with a mixed failure mode (P < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: The One Coat 7 Universal adhesive system showed higher microtensile bond strength values and higher chemical interaction with dentin compared to Palfique Universal Bond and Single Bond Universal. However, no significant differences were observed compared to All-Bond Universal.

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of dentin bonding agents and silanization on the bond strength between 3D printed resin and composite resin and compare it with a conventional composite resin. 3D printed resin cylinders (PCB) and composite resin substrates (Z250) were prepared and divided into eight subgroups based on the bonding agents used (n=12). The shear bond strength was measured using a universal testing machine, and the failure modes were evaluated. The bond strength was found to vary significantly among the bonding agents and substrate types. Silane application did not significantly improve the bond strength. Among the bonding agents, the universal adhesives exhibited the highest bond strengths for both substrates. Compared to PCB, Z250 demonstrated stronger bonds and exhibited more cohesive failures. Further research is needed to optimize the surface treatments and resin formulations for enhanced bond strength and durability between 3D printed and composite resins.

OBJECTIVE: In-office and lab milled prostheses are the staple for indirect restorations. It is therefore critical to determine their long-term bonding durability.
METHODS: CAD/ CAM blocks of two classes of restorative materials: 1) a nano-ceramic reinforced polymer matrix (NCPM) and, 2) a polymer-infiltrated ceramic network (PICN) were bonded using four different universal adhesives (UA) and silane systems. A lithium disilicate glassceramic (LDS) was used as a reference. The blocks were bisected and bonded with different UA/resin-cement pairs. Bonded blocks were then cut into 1.0x1.0x12.0 mm bar specimens for microtensile bond testing. Half the bars were subjected to bond strength testing immediately and the other half after aging by 50,000 thermal cycles between 5°C and 55°C. ANOVA and post-hoc tests were used to compare mean bond strength among groups.
RESULTS: NCPM presented consistently high bond strength regardless of bonding techniques, while the bond strength of PICN and LDS were lower when bonded with UA relative to traditional silanes. The more hydrophilic UA produced higher bond strengths.
CONCLUSIONS: Glass-ceramics exhibited lower bond strength with UA than the conventional etch-rinse-silane techniques. However, UAs preserved bonding interface in the long-term.
CONCLUSIONS: NCPM displayed superior bond strength relative to PICN and LDS regardless of the type of adhesives and bonding techniques.

The aim of this study is to investigate the repair bond strength of composite resin following three different surface treatments (bur-grinding, silanization, and Er,Cr:YSGG laser irradiation) using various universal adhesives. A total of 160 resin composite specimens, produced in cylindrical form (6 × 2 mm) with a nanohybrid composite resin within metal molds, were subjected to 5000 cycles of aging in a thermocycler. The aged samples were categorized into four groups based on surface treatments: control, bur, silane, and Er,Cr:YSGG laser. Following surface treatments, the specimens underwent repair using the same resin composite and four different adhesive systems: Tokuyama Universal Bond (TUB), Prime Bond Universal (PBU), Gluma Bond Universal (GBU), and Clearfil SE Bond (CSB). Subsequently, the specimens were subjected to shear forces, and statistical analysis was performed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey tests (p < 0.05). The failure modes were examined using a stereomicroscope, and the surface topography of the roughened resin composite was assessed through scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Results indicated that silane + GBU exhibited the highest shear bond strength (SBS) (15.61 MPa) while control + TUB showed the lowest SBS (7.63 MPa). Silane demonstrated significantly higher SBS values (p ≤ 0.05), with no significant difference observed between bur and laser methods (p = 0.998). It is recommended to include an additional silanization step before applying universal adhesive, as it effectively enhances the bond strength of the repaired composite.

In this study, we evaluated the effect of four different strategies for bonding a CAD/CAM resin nanoceramic restoration (Lava Ultimate, 3M) to the dentin surface using a universal adhesive (Scotch Bond Universal, 3M) and adhesive resin cement (RelyX Ultimate, 3M) on the shear bond strength (SBS) and failure mode. The strategies comprised: (i) immediate sealing, immediate bonding; (ii) immediate sealing, bonding after 2 weeks with provisional restoration; (iii) immediate sealing with flowable resin composite reinforcement and bonding after 2 weeks with provisional restoration; and (iv) no immediate sealing, and bonding after 2 weeks with provisional restoration. After bonding, all the specimens were thermocycled, shear tests were performed using a universal testing machine, and failure modes were determined using stereomicroscope and scanning electron microscopy. The highest mean SBS was recorded with immediate sealing, immediate bonding strategy. Most adhesive failures with exposed dentinal tubules were noted in specimens exposed to bonding after 2 weeks with no immediate sealing, which was associated with the lowest SBS. Mixed failures predominated in all immediate dentin sealing groups. Immediate sealing with universal adhesives improves SBS, particularly in the single-visit approach, which has shown significantly better performance, whereas the provisional phase has a negative effect.

UNASSIGNED: The bond capacity of universal adhesives should be comparable to a specific primer for zirconia. Thus, this study evaluated the bond strength to zirconia of four universal adhesives and a zirconia primer over long-term storage.
UNASSIGNED: The surfaces of 75 samples of zirconia were sandblasted with 50 µm aluminum oxide particles and then divided into groups (n = 15): G1 - Single Bond Universal (SBU); G2 - All Bond Universal; G3 - Peak Universal Bond; G4 - Ambar Universal (AU), and G5 - Z-Prime Plus (ZP). A cone of resin composite was constructed on the applied materials. The samples were submitted to a tensile bond strength test after 24 h using a universal testing machine. Then, the remaining materials were removed from the sample surfaces, and the surfaces were polished and sandblasted again as previously described to obtain the same groups. These new samples were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 12 months and then submitted to a tensile bond strength test. The data were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance and Tukey\'s test (α =0.05).
UNASSIGNED: The material factor (P = 0.001) and the storage factor (P = 0.001) were significant, and the interaction was not significant (P = 0.117). According to Tukey\'s test, bond strength mean values (in MPa) followed by distinct letters were significantly different. After 24 h, G5 = 21.12 A, G1 = 20.55 A, G4 = 19.19 AB, G2 = 14.22 B, and G3 = 8.44 C. After 12 months, G1 = 7.37 A, G5 = 5.61 AB, G4 = 4.97 B, G2 = 3.32 C, and G3 = 1.93 D. After 12 months of storage, all groups\' bond strength significantly decreased.
UNASSIGNED: SBU and AU had bond strengths comparable to ZP after 24 h. No material resisted water degradation.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated and compared the bond strengths, microleakage, microgaps, and marginal adaptation of self-adhesive resin composites (SAC) to dentin with or without universal adhesives.
METHODS: Dentin surfaces of 75 molars were prepared for shear and microtensile bond strength testing (SBS and µTBS). Silicon molds were used to build up direct restorations using the following materials to form 5 groups: 1. Surefil One; 2. Prime&Bond active Universal Adhesive + Surefil One; 3. Vertise Flow; 4. OptiBond Universal + Vertise Flow; 5. Scotchbond Universal + Filtek Z500 (control group). Bonded specimens were thermocycled 10,000x before being tested either for SBS or µTBS using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Direct mesial and distal class-II cavities were created on 100 sound premolars, with the gingival margin of distal cavities placed below CEJ and restored according to the five groups. After thermocycling, microleakage scores were assessed following immersion of restored premolars in 2% methylene blue dye for 24 h, while marginal gaps and adaptation percentages were investigated on epoxy resin replicas under SEM at magnifications of 2000X and 200X, respectively. Results were statistically analyzed with parametric and non-parametric tests as applicable, with a level of significance set at α = 0.05.
RESULTS: Bond strengths, microleakage scores, microgaps, and percent marginal adaptation of Surefil One and Vertise Flow were significantly (p < 0.001) inferior to the control group. Dentin preconditioning with universal adhesives significantly increased the study parameter outcomes of Surefil One and Vertise Flow, yet they were still significantly below the performance of the control group.
CONCLUSIONS: Conventional resin composite outperformed the SAC whether applied solely or in conjunction with their corresponding universal adhesives.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the adhesion of a self-curing (Tokuyama Universal Bond, TUB) and a light-curing (Scotchbond Universal, SBU) universal adhesive to CAD/CAM materials, enamel, and dentin. This study also assessed differences in enamel adhesion between self-etch vs selective etching modes, as well as immediate and long-term adhesion to dentin for both adhesives.
METHODS: Shear bond strength (SBS) testing was used to assess adhesion to enamel, dentin, Lava Ultimate (LU), Vita Enamic (VE), IPS e.max CAD (LD), IPS e.max ZirCAD (3Y-Zir), and Lava Esthetic (5Y-Zir) (n = 10). Moreover, bonding to enamel in self-etch and selective etching modes (n = 10) as well as immediate and aged resin-dentin bond strength (24 h after bonding, after 100,000 thermal cycles [TC] and long-term storage) was evaluated using the microtensile bond-strength test (n = 30). Failure mode was also determined for the bonding to dentin. Statistical analyses consisted of one-way and two-way ANOVA with appropriate post-hoc Tukey-Kramer or two-sample t-tests, as well as the chi-squared or Fisher\'s exact test (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: TUB and SBU universal adhesives presented similar bonding to LU, VE, 3Y-Zir, and 5Y-Zir. However, SBS for TUB was superior to SBU when bonding to lithium-disilicate glass-ceramic (IPS e.max CAD). SBU showed better adhesion to dentin and enamel when used in the self-etch mode, while TUB promoted strong bond strength to enamel in the selective etching mode. TUB after TC was the only aging condition that yielded a significant reduction in resin-dentin bond strength.
CONCLUSIONS: In-vitro adhesion performance of the self-curing and light-curing universal adhesives varies depending on the dental substrate or CAD/CAM restorative material used for bonding.