Influence of Universal Adhesives With or Without Silane Compared to One‐Step and Two‐Step Silane Agents on Bond Strength to Lithium Disilicate
4 affiliations
- 1Department of Oral Health, Facultad de Odontología Universidad Nacional de Colombia Bogotá Colombia
- 2Department of Dental System, Facultad de Odontología Pontifícia Universidad Javeriana Bogotá Colombia
- 3Department of Restorative Dentistry State University of Ponta Grossa Ponta Grossa Brazil
- 4Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry Ponta Grossa State University (UEPG) Ponta Grossa Brazil
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the microshear bond strength (μSBS) to lithium disilicate achieved with universal adhesives (with and without silane) compared with one‐step and two‐step silanes, immediately (IM) and after thermocycling (TC). Chemical interaction (CI) was also assessed.
Material and Methods: Lithium disilicate blocks were randomly assigned to nine groups (n = 10) according to surface treatment (silane‐free [ALB; AllBond Universal] and silane‐containing [AMU; Ambar Universal APS Plus, SBU; Scotchbond Universal Plus] universal adhesives, one‐step [PPR; Porcelain Primer, PRO; Prosil, CPR; Ceramic Primer], or two‐step silanes [BIS; Bis‐Silane, EXP; experimental silane, SIL; Silano Mais]). After hydrofluoric acid etching, treatments were applied and resin cement cylinders bonded. μSBS was measured after 24 h or 10,000 thermocycles. CI was analyzed by micro‐Raman spectroscopy. Data were evaluated using two‐way ANOVA and Bonferroni tests (α = 0.05).
Results: Surface treatment, evaluation time, and their interaction significantly influenced μSBS (p < 0.001). IM, two‐step silanes, PPR, and AMU showed higher μSBS, whereas the silane‐free universal adhesive demonstrated lower values. After TC, SIL, BIS, PPR, and AMU maintained higher μSBS. Raman analysis demonstrated comparable CI for AMU and SBU compared with one‐ and two‐step silanes.
Conclusions: Bond strength was influenced by pretreatment strategy and aging. Two‐step silanes were more consistent, although selected simplified systems achieved comparable performance.
Clinical Significance: Two‐step silanes remain the most predictable option; however, certain silane‐containing universal adhesives and specific one‐step silanes may offer simplified alternatives when durability limitations are considered.
Related
- Comparison of bond strength in fixed multistrand retainers using universal and conventional adhesives: An in vitro study.
- Effect of chemical surface pretreatments on microtensile bond strength of resin composite to dentin when using universal adhesives: a systematic review of laboratory studies.
- Influence of dentin depth and hemostatic contamination on microtensile bond strength of a universal adhesive: Effect of phosphoric acid re-etching as a rescue protocol.
- Bond Strength of 10-MDP-Containing Adhesives Following Pre-Operative and Post-Operative Dental Bleaching: An In Vitro Study
- On the influence of mechanical loadings on the porosities of structural epoxy adhesives joints by means of in-situ X-ray microtomography
BibTeX
@article{pulido2026influence,
title = {{Influence of Universal Adhesives With or Without Silane Compared to One‐Step and Two‐Step Silane Agents on Bond Strength to Lithium Disilicate}},
author = {Camilo Pulido and Michel Wendlinger and Gabriel David Cochinski and Camila Farias Monteles and Alessandro Dourado Loguercio},
journal = {Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry},
year = {2026},
month = jul,
doi = {10.1111/jerd.70240},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.70240},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Influence of Universal Adhesives With or Without Silane Compared to One‐Step and Two‐Step Silane Agents on Bond Strength to Lithium Disilicate
AU - Camilo Pulido
AU - Michel Wendlinger
AU - Gabriel David Cochinski
AU - Camila Farias Monteles
AU - Alessandro Dourado Loguercio
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/07/25
JO - Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry
DO - 10.1111/jerd.70240
UR - https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.70240
AB - Objective: To evaluate the microshear bond strength (μSBS) to lithium disilicate achieved with universal adhesives (with and without silane) compared with one‐step and two‐step silanes, immediately (IM) and after thermocycling (TC). Chemical interaction (CI) was also assessed. Material and Methods: Lithium disilicate blocks were randomly assigned to nine groups (n = 10) according to surface treatment (silane‐free [ALB; AllBond Universal] and silane‐containing [AMU; Ambar Universal APS Plus, SBU; Scotchbond Universal Plus] universal adhesives, one‐step [PPR; Porcelain Primer, PRO; Prosil, CPR; Ceramic Primer], or two‐step silanes [BIS; Bis‐Silane, EXP; experimental silane, SIL; Silano Mais]). After hydrofluoric acid etching, treatments were applied and resin cement cylinders bonded. μSBS was measured after 24 h or 10,000 thermocycles. CI was analyzed by micro‐Raman spectroscopy. Data were evaluated using two‐way ANOVA and Bonferroni tests (α = 0.05). Results: Surface treatment, evaluation time, and their interaction significantly influenced μSBS (p < 0.001). IM, two‐step silanes, PPR, and AMU showed higher μSBS, whereas the silane‐free universal adhesive demonstrated lower values. After TC, SIL, BIS, PPR, and AMU maintained higher μSBS. Raman analysis demonstrated comparable CI for AMU and SBU compared with one‐ and two‐step silanes. Conclusions: Bond strength was influenced by pretreatment strategy and aging. Two‐step silanes were more consistent, although selected simplified systems achieved comparable performance. Clinical Significance: Two‐step silanes remain the most predictable option; however, certain silane‐containing universal adhesives and specific one‐step silanes may offer simplified alternatives when durability limitations are considered.
SN - 1496-4155
SN - 1708-8240
ER -