The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely. As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.
Learn more: PMC Disclaimer generation Three-steps Etch-Rinse All-Bond 2Bisco Schaumburg, IL, USADual curedAll-Bond 3Bisco Schaumburg, IL, USALight cured, DualClearfil Liner BondKuraray (Kurashiki, Japan)Light or self curedScotchbond Multi-Purpose(3M ESPE, St. Paul, Minn. USA)Light curedAdper Scotchbond Multi Purpose(3M ESPE, St. Paul, Minn. USA)Light cured, DualPlusOptibond Dual Cure(Kerr, Orange, CA, USA)Light curedOptibond FL(Kerr, Orange, CA, USA)Light curedPermagenLight curedSyntac Classic(Ultradent Prod Inc, Utah, USA)Light curedDenthesive(Ivoclar-Vivadent, Schann, Liechtenstein)Light curedGluma Solid Bond(Heraeus Kulzer, Wehrheim Germany)Light curedEBS(Heraeus Kulzer Hanau, Germany)Light curedGluma CPSESPE (now 3M ESPE; Seefeld, Germany)Light curedPermaquikBayer (Heraeus-Kulzer; Leverkusen, Germany)Self curedAmalgabondKerr (Ultradent)Light curedCmfParkell, Farmingdale, NYLight curedFL BondSaremco, Rebstein, Switzerland)Light curedProBond(Shofu Inc. Kyoto, Japan)Light cured, DualBond-it(Dentsply Caulk)Light cured, DualEcusit-Primer/MonoPentron Corporation, Wallingford, CT, USALight curedSolobond PlusDMG, Hamburg, GermanyLight curedLuxa bond total etchVOCO, Cuxhaven, Germany DMG AmericaLight cured, Dual

Table 7

List of bonding agents available of Universal generation.

Generation Brand name Manufacturer Polymerisation
Multi-mode or Universal All-Bond Universal Bisco (Inc., Schaumburg, IL, USA) Light cured, Dual
Prime&Bond Elect Dentsply Caulk (Milford, DE, USA) Light cured
Xeno Select Dentsply Caulk (Milford, DE, USA) Light cured
AdheSE Universal Ivoclar Vivadent (Schaan, Principality of Liechtenstein) Light cured
G-aenial Bond GC America (Alsip, IL, USA) Light cured
Clearfil Universal Bond Kuraray (Tokyo, Japan) Light cured, Self cured
Scotchbond Universal Adhesive 3M ESPE (St. Paul, MN, USA) Light cured
Futurabond U Voco (Cuxhaven, Germany) Light cured

Etch and Rinse

Etch-and-rinse adhesive systems are the oldest of the multi-generation evolution of resin bonding systems. The three-steps total-etch adhesive systems were introduced in early 1990s ( 47 ), that involve acid-etching, priming and application of a separate adhesive. Each of the three-steps can accomplish multiple tasks ending with sealing the bonded interface with a relatively hydrophobic adhesive layer. Consequentially, an inter-diffusion layer is formed that called hybrid layer. Etch-and-rinse adhesives are characterized by an initial etching step, followed by a compulsory rinsing procedure which is responsible for the complete removal of smear layer and smear plugs. On enamel, acid-etching selectively dissolves the enamel rods, creating macro-and micro porosities which are readily penetrated, even by ordinary hydrophobic bonding agents, by capillary attraction ( 48 ). Upon polymerization, this micromechanical interlocking of tiny resin tags within the acid-etched enamel surface still provides the best achievable bond to the dental substrate ( 49 ). Dentin adhesion is more challenging than enamel adhesion due to dentin composition, rendering the etch-and-rinse strategy a highly sensitive technique ( 50 ). Concurrently, acid-etching promotes dentine demineralization over a depth of 3–5 lm, thereby exposing a scaffold of collagen fibrils that is nearly totally depleted of hydroxyapatite ( 23 ). The following step consists of the application of a primer containing specific monomers with hydrophilic properties, such as 2-Hydroxy ethyl meth-acrylate (HEMA), dissolved in organic solvents like acetone, ethanol or water. While HEMA is responsible for improving the wettability and promoting the re-expansion of the collagen network, the solvents are able to displace water from the dentine surface, thus preparing the collagen network for the subsequent adhesive resin infiltration ( 51 ). In the bonding step, a solvent-free adhesive resin is applied on the prepared surface, leading to the penetration of hydrophobic monomers not only into the inter-fibrilar spaces of the collagen network but also into dentine tubules. After infiltration, these monomers are polymerized in situ , resulting in the formation of a hybrid layer, which in combination with the presence of resin tags inside dentine tubules provides micromechanical retention to the composite restoration ( 52 ). From the traditional three-step etch-and-rinse adhesives, simplified two-step adhesives have been developed that combine the primer and the adhesive resin into one single solution. These simplified adhesives present a reduced ability to infiltrate the demineralized dentine substrate, thereby producing suboptimal hybridization when compared to their three-step counterparts ( 53 ). Moreover, the hydrophilic nature of such adhesives render them more prone to water sorption and consequently more susceptible to the effects of hydrolytic degradation. The solvent present in such adhesives is also more difficult to evaporate, frequently remaining entrapped within the adhesive layer after polymerization ( 54 ). The etch-and-rinse technique is considered to be critical and highly sensitive, because the over-dried dentin causes both demineralized collagen fibers to collapse and low monomer diffusion among the fibers, hampering the formation of a functionally suitable hybrid layer (HL), however the sensitivity is mostly related to the etching step itself and to the ostensibly antagonistic role of water in the bonding protocol. In ‘over-wet’ conditions, seems to cause phase separation between the hydrophobic and hydrophilic components of the adhesive, resulting in the formation of blister- and globule-like voids at the resindentine interface ( 55 ). In addition, the excessive presence of humidity may result in incomplete monomer polymerization and water adsorption in the HL. These effects can decrease the mechanical quality of the HL formed, causing its early degradation ( 56 ). However the conditions of over-dry and over-wet remains a major concern and difficult to standardize; must be considered not only extrinsic, but also intrinsic sources of humidity when an adhesive procedure is clinically performed. Therefore, the surface should be gently dried until the etched enamel presents its white-frosted appearance and dentine loses its shine and turns dull ( 57 ). Although etch-and-rinse adhesives are still the gold standard for dental adhesion and the oldest of the marketed adhesives, it seem to be incapable of preventing nanoleakage, ( 58 ) despite their satisfactory long-term clinical performance ( 50 ). Although occurring even in the absence of interfacial gaps, nanoleakage seems to play a negative role in bonding, especially in terms of durability ( 59 ). Thereby, the current trend is to develop simplified self-etching materials ( 60 ).

Self-etch

Self-etching systems were introduced to control the sensitivity to humidity of the etch-and-rinse technique as well as to simplify the clinical procedures of adhesive application, reducing clinical time ( 61 ). The self-etch adhesive systems are classified based on the number of clinical application steps: two-steps or one-step adhesives. The basic composition of self-etch primers and self-etch adhesive systems an aqueous solution of acidic functional monomers, with a pH relatively higher than that of phosphoric acid etchants. Therefore, self-etching adhesives have been classified according to their acidity: as strong (pH≤1), intermediate (pH=1.5), and mild (pH≥2) ( 62 ) Mild self-etch adhesives demineralize dentin only superficially leaving hydroxyapatite crystals around the collagen fibrils available for possible chemical interaction. Usually, the smear plug is not completely removed from the dentine tubule. As a result, a shallow hybrid layer is formed with submicron measures ( 63 ), as do the ultra-mild self-etch adhesives ( 64 ); on the contrary, strong self-etch adhesives demineralize dentin comparably to etch-and-rinse adhesives. The mild self-etch adhesives are assumed to cause less post-operative pain, as they use the smear layer as bonding substrate, leaving residual smear plugs that cause less dentinal fluid flow than etch-and-rinse adhesives. The role of water is to provide the medium for ionization and action of these acidic resin monomers. Self-etch adhesive systems also contain HEMA (2-hydroxyethyl-methacrylate) hydrophilic monomer, because of its low molecular weight HEMA acts as a co-solvent, minimizing phase separation and increasing the miscibility of hydrophobic and hydrophilic components into the solution and to increase the wettability of dentin surface ( 65 ). Bi or multi-functional monomers are added to provide strength to the cross-linking formed from monomeric matrix ( 3 ). Because self-etch adhesive systems do not require a separate acid conditioning step as they contain acidic monomers that simultaneously ‘condition’ and ‘prime’ the dental substrate ( 66 ), they are considered as simplified adhesive materials. Possibly, self-etching systems alter the “smear layer” that covers the dentin after tooth bur preparation, creating a thin HL of 0.5–1.2 mm thickness ( 67 ). For this system, the created tags are short (16 mm) and narrow. However, due to low acidity, the presence of a “smear layer” or “smear plugs” obliterates the tubule orifices is common after adhesive procedures, limiting hybridization of the peritubular dentin and resin tag formation. In spite of forming a thin HL, this system exhibits a chemical bond to the dentin substrate. Furthermore, self-etch dentin adhesive claimed to minimize post-operative hypersensitivity, because residual smear plugs are left which expose less dentinal tubules and causes less dentinal fluid flow than etch-and-rinse bonds, but the disadvantage is an insufficient enamel etching ability resultant from their less acidity and less injurious to the dental substrate than etch-and-rinse adhesives ( 68 ). Thus, it is very important to use these dentin adhesives properly in various clinical situations. On the basis of the steps of application, they can be categorized as: a two-steps “self-etch primers” (SEP) that is mostly solvent-free and a one-step “self-etch adhesives” (SEA) depending on whether a self-etching primer and adhesive resin are separately provided or are combined into one single solution. Two-step self-etching adhesive systems (SEA) require the use of two separate components: the first bottle containing primer and acid and the second bottle containing hydrophobic bond resin. The self-etching primer (SEP) used to condition the dental substrate, followed by the application of a hydrophobic bonding resin ( 69 ). The self-etching primer are aqueous acidic solutions containing various vinyl monomers (acidic, hydrophilic and hydrophobic monomers) which can simultaneously etch and infiltrate dental tissues, then photopolymerize with the bonding resin, thus forming a bond between the dental substrate and the restorative material applied after wards. Single-step self-etch adhesives that combine the functions of a self-etching primer and a bonding agent have been developed. One-step adhesives can be further subdivided into ‘two-component’ and ‘single-component’ one-step self-etch adhesives. By separating ‘active’ ingredients (like the functional monomer from water), two-component self-etch adhesives theoretically possess a longer shelf life, but additional and adequate mixing of both components is needed. The single-component one step adhesives can be considered as the only true ‘one-bottle’ or ‘all-in-one’ adhesives, as they combine ‘conditioning’, ‘priming’ and ‘application of the adhesive resin’, and do not require mixing ( 69 ). This kind of adhesive system combines acidic functional monomers, hydrophilic monomers, hydrophobic monomers, fillers, water and various solvent (acetone, ethanol, buthanol) and resin component, photo-inhibitors for bonding in a single solution. They are so-called as 7 th generation dentin adhesive and undoubtedly the most convenient. The use of water as a solvent is indispensable for single-step self-etch adhesives to ensure the ionization of the acidic functional monomers, and the organic solvents are added to facilitate mixing of the hydrophilic and hydrophobic components ( 69 ). The presence of water and acidic functional monomers may compromise the bonding durability of single-step self-etch adhesives. However, the main disadvantages of one-step self-etch adhesives is related to their excessive hydrophilicity that makes the adhesive layer more prone to attract water from the intrinsically moist substrate ( 39 ). Due to such increased water affinity, these adhesives have been reported to act as semi-permeable membranes, even after polymerization, allowing water movement from the substrate throughout the adhesive layer ( 46 ). As a consequence, small droplets can be found at the transition between the adhesive layer and the lining composite, especially when polymerization of the latter is delayed. Besides promoting a decrease in bond strength between composite and substrate ( 70 ), such permeability of the adhesive layer seems to contribute to the hydrolysis of resin polymers and the consequent degradation of tooth-resin bond over time ( 71 ). In addition, acetone has a so-called “water-chasing” effect ( 72 ), thus it can infiltrate rapidly into the exposed dentinal tubules. However, its vapor pressure is much higher than that of other solvents like ethanol or water, and the adhesive may not infiltrate sufficiently in some situations. It was observed that the poor performance of self-etch adhesives could depend upon shallow resin tag penetration produced by the self-etching process, an inefficient curing caused by their acidic nature, or solvent retention and phase separation phenomena due to the coexistence of both hydrophilic and hydrophobic moieties in the same product ( 73 ). Most single-step dentin adhesives are very hydrophilic so that they can interact with underlying dentin. However, it may form water permeable adhesive layer, thus compromising bonding performance ( 74 ). To overcome this problem, All-Bond Universal contains minimum amount of ethanol and water as their solvent.

Universal adhesive systems

One of the most recent novelties, in adhesive dentistry, was the introduction of universal adhesives, that have been used since 2011 in clinical practice. These new products are known as “multi-mode” or “multi-purpose” adhesives because they may be used as self-etch (SE) adhesives, etch-and-rinse (ER) adhesives, or as SE adhesives on dentin and ER adhesives on enamel (a technique commonly referred to as “selective enamel etching”) ( 75 , 76 ). This versatile new adhesion philosophy advocates the use of the simplest option of each strategy, that is, one-step self-etch (SE) or two-step etch-and-rinse (ER) ( 77 ), using the same single bottle of adhesive solution which is definitely much more challenging to dental substrates of different natures (i.e., sound, carious, sclerotic dentin, as well as enamel) ( 78 ). Beforehand etching enamel with phosphoric acid is often recommended, in particular when bonding to unground enamel. Indeed, the priming and bonding components can be separated or combined, resulting in three steps or two steps for etch-and-rinse systems, and two steps or one step for self-etch adhesives. Contemplating these two bonding strategies, adequate bonding to dentin can be completely achieved with either etch-and-rinse or self-etch adhesives; however, at enamel, the etch-and-rinse approach using phosphoric acid remains the preferred choice ( 79 , 80 ). In relation to the application mode, self-etch adhesive systems reduce the possibility of iatrogenic induced clinical mis-manipulation during acid conditioning, rinsing and drying, which may occur when etch-and-rinse systems are used ( 81 ). On the other hand, some drawbacks may be listed for these SE materials. Unfortunately, one of the main drawbacks from applying SE adhesives to dentin and enamel is their inability to etch enamel to the same depth that phosphoric acid does, which is likely responsible for the higher rates of marginal discoloration in the enamel margins of cervical restoration due to their lower acidity. Thereby the degradation of SE was attributed to its acidic content, which increases the hydrophilicity of the adhesive layer and leads to water uptake and plasticization ( 82 ). So the long-term performance of simplified one-step adhesives is inferior in terms of bond durability ( 60 , 83 ), in particular when compared to the gold-standard three-step etch-and-rinse approach. To overcome the weakness of previous generations of single-step self-etch adhesives, universal adhesives have been developed that allow for application of the adhesive with phosphoric acid pre-etching in the total etch or selective-etch approaches in order to achieve a durable bond to enamel and has been accepted by showing good results in vitro ( 84 ) and in vivo studies ( 85 87 ). Despite the similarities between adhesives, the composition of universal adhesive differs from the current SE systems by the incorporation of monomers that are capable of producing chemical and micromechanical bond adhesion to the dental substrates ( 75 , 76 ). Its composition is an important factor to be taken account, since most of these adhesive contain specific carboxylate and/or phosphate monomers that bond ionically to calcium found in hydroxyapatite (Ca10[PO4]6[OH]2) ( 88 , 89 ), that could be influence the bonding effectiveness ( 77 ). For example, Methacryloyloxydecyl Dihydrogen phosphate (MDP) is a functional monomer found in certain new adhesives, but not for older-generation bonding agents. This is a hydrophilic monomer with mild-etching properties. MDP is one of the monomers that enable a universal adhesive to be used with any etching techniques. Stable MDP-calcium salts are formed during this reaction and deposited in self-assembled nano-layers of varying degrees and quality depending on the adhesive system ( 90 , 91 ). It also helps promote strong adhesion to the tooth surface via formation of non-soluble Ca 2 salts. Furthermore, it contains biphenyl dimethacrylate (BPDM), dipentaerythritol pentaacrylate phosphoric acid ester (PEN-TA) ( 92 ) and polyalkenoic acid copolymer may enhance adhesion to tooth structures and have been part of the composition of different materials for decades. This may be important in terms of durability, as water sorption and hydrolytic breakdown of the adhesive interface over time has been implicated as one of the primary causes of bond failure ( 93 , 68 ). Additionally, the matrix of universal is based on a combination of monomers of hydrophilic (hydroxyethul methacrylate /HEMA) hydrophobic (decandiol dimethacrylite /D3MA) and intermediate (bis-GMA) nature. This combination of properties allows universal adhesives to create a bridge over the gap between the hydrophilic tooth substrate and hydrophobic resin restorative, under a variety of surface conditions. Moreover, some universal adhesives may contain silane in their formulation, potentially eliminating the silanization step when bonding to glass ceramics or resin composites, for instance. Nevertheless, it is known that simplified materials are associated with lower in vitro bond strength results and poorer in vivo longevity of restorations, ( 94 , 95 ). These findings are probably a result of the complex formulation of simplified adhesives and their high content of solvents, which may impair complete solvent volatilization and consequently lead to poorer adhesive polymerization ( 96 ). This multi-approach capability enables the clinician to apply the adhesive with the so-called selective enamel etching technique that combines the advantages of the etch-and-rinse technique on enamel, with the simplified self-etch approach on dentine with additional chemical bonding on remnant carbonated apatite crystallites in those bonding substrates. Therefore, the universal adhesives have much broader applications than 7 th generation systems. Additionally, manufacturers typically state that universal adhesives can be used for the placement of both direct and indirect restorations and are compatible with self-cure, light-cure and dual-cure resin-based cements and bonds to metals, zirconia, porcelain and composite. While, the manufacturers of some universal adhesives still recommend the use of separate “activator” and dedicated primers to optimize bond strength to substrates such as porcelain and zirconia. Thus, it appears, at least in certain situations and with some products, that universal adhesives actually consist of two bottles, or require the use of an additional activator, or have chemistries that must be mixed prior to use, or bond most optimally to porcelain and zirconia with separately applied and dedicated primers, or are not compatible with a total-etch protocol. Further, there is an advantage in having an adhesive that can operate on these two procedures since it allows the dentist to choose his procedure according to the clinical case in order to optimize the final result. For instance, when the restoration requires strong bonding to enamel or in case of sclerotic dentin, it may be advisable to apply prior etching. The etching step can be modulated according to the length of time the phosphoric acid gel is applied prior to rinsing. On the other hand, it may be preferable to benefit completely from the self-etch path way, when dealing with cases confronting difficult access, limited time or poor patient compliance in very young patients.

Conclusions

Increasing demands for aesthetic restorative treatments have led to recent advances in dentistry, developing adhesive integrated materials (such as adhesive systems and composites) and techniques aimed at restoring the natural tooth appearance, especially in the anterior segment ( 97 ). The major requirement of adhesive aesthetic materials is the ability to achieve an excellent color matching with the natural teeth and the maintenance of the optical properties over time. The goals for esthetic dental restorations are to obtain morphologic, optical and biologic result miming natural enamel and dentine. This color matching is performed in order to obtain harmony with the surrounding anatomical structures ( 98 ).

Further the evolution of these materials and techniques has recently took steps forward and succeed in preserving teeth instead of extracting them. Most of these improvements were evident in conservative dentistry and in particular, adhesive dentistry ( 99 ).

This review about adhesive dentistry describes all the “generations” and types of adhesive product designs that have been introduced during the last 30 years. Since the introduction of the acid etched into clinical practice, various dentin bonding agents were developed to improved the quality of adhesives and composites restoration. The manufactures have been ongoing progress in the development of new dentin adhesive aiming to simplify the process, attempted to improve clinical results correlates to their stability over time and to their bond strength performance consequently lead to improve their effect on the durability of the resin bond. The new adhesive systems also can be attributed to their ability to decrease or eliminate postoperative sensitivity, improve marginal seal, reduce microleakage and enhance the flow of resin into fissure. The development of functional monomers with strong and stabile chemical affinity to hydroxyapatite is without doubt a valuable direction to continue for improvement of dental adhesion. Furthermore, long-term ageing also requires evaluation of its effect in establishing a long-term success of composite restoration.

Table 4

List of bonding agents available of 5 th generation.

Generation Brand name Manufacturer Polymerisation
5 th Generation Two-steps Etch-Rinse Admira Bond Voco, (Cuxhaven, Germany) Light cured
Solobond M Voco, (Cuxhaven, Germany) Light cured
Polibond Voco, (Cuxhaven, Germany) Dual cured
Excite Ivoclar Vivadent (Schaan, Lichtenstein) Light cured
Excite DSC Ivoclar Vivadent (Schaan, Lichtenstein) Dual cured
ExciTE F Ivoclar Vivadent (Schaan, Lichtenstein) Light cured
Gluma 2000 Bayer, (now Heraeus-Kulzer; Leverkusen, Germany) Light cured
Gluma Comfort Bond Heraeus Kulzer, Hanau, Germany Light cured
Gluma One Bond Heraeus Kulzer, Hanau, Germany Light cured
One-Coat Bond Coltène Whaledent (Altstätten, Switzerland) Light cured
Optibond Solo Plus Kerr (Orange, Calif. USA) Light cured
Optibond SoloPlus Dual cure Kerr (Orange, Calif. USA) Dual cured
Prime&Bond 2.0 Dentsply-Detrey (Konstanz, Germany) Light cured
Prime&Bond 2.1 Dentsply-Detrey (Konstanz, Germany) Light cured
Prime&Bond NT Dentsply-Detrey (Konstanz, Germany) Dual cured
XP Bond Dentsply-Detrey (Konstanz, Germany) Self cured
Stae Southern Dental Industries (Victoria, Australia) Light cured
Syntac Single-Component Ivoclar Vivadent (Schaan, Liechtenstein) Light cured
One Step Bisco Inc., Schaumburg, IL, USA Light cured
One-Step Plus Bisco Inc., Schaumburg, IL, USA Light cured
Adper Single Bond Plus, (Adper 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN,USA Light cured
Single Bond 2) 3M ESPE (Seefeld, Germany)
Scotchbond 1 (Single Bond) Kuraray (Osaka, Japan) Light cured
Clearfil Liner Bond 2 Kuraray (Osaka, Japan) Light cured
Clearfil SE Kuraray Medical Inc, Tokyo, Japan Dual cured
Clearfil Photobond Kuraray Medical Inc, Tokyo, Japan Self cured
Clearfil New Bond Pentron Corporation, Wallingford, CT, USA Light cured
Bond-1 Sun Medical Co, Shiga, Japan Dual cured
Superbond C&B Bisco Schaumburg, IL, USA Self cured
All bond plus Bisco Schaumburg, IL, USA Light cured

Table 5

List of bonding agents available of 6 th generation.

Generation Brand name Manufacturer Polymerisation
6 th Generation Two-steps Self-Etch ART Bond Coltene (Alstatten, Switzerland) Light cured
PUB 3 Denstply (Konstanz, Germany) Light cured
Clearfil SE Kuraray (Tokyo, Japan) Light cured
Clearfil Protect Bond Kuraray (Osaka, Japan) Light cured
Denthesive 2 Heraeus Kulzer (Wehrheim, Germany) Light cured
Tyrian SPE Bisco (Schaumburg, IL, USA) Light cured
Adhe SE Ivoclar Vivadent (Schaan, Liechtenstein) Dual cured
Adper Scotchbond SE self-etch 3M ESPE (St. Paul, MN, USA) Light cured
FL bond II Shofu Dental Light cured
Clearfill Liner bond 2V Kuraray (Tokyo, Japan) Dual cured
Contax DMG America Dual cured
Nanobond Pentron Clinical Dual cured
Clearfil S3 Bond Kuraray (Osaka, Japan) Light cured
G Bond GC Corp (Tokyo, Japan Light cured
AQ Bond plus Sun Medicals Light cured
Hybrid Bond Vivadent (Schann, Liechtenstein) Light cured
All Bond SE Bisco (Inc., Schaumburg, IL, USA) Light cured
iBond Gluma inside Heraeus Kulzer (Hanau, Germany) Light cured
Fluoro bond Shake One Shofu, (Tokyo, Japan) Light cured
One up Bond F+ Tokuyama Corp, (Tokyo, Japan) Light cured
PSA Dyract Dentsply, (Konstanz, Germany) Light cured
Xeno III Dentsply, (Sankin) Light cured
Prompt Adper Prompt L-Pop 3M ESPE (St. Paul, Minn. USA) Light cured
L-Pop 3M ESPE (St. Paul, Minn. USA) Light cured
Brush and bond Parkell Light cured

Table 6

List of bonding agents available of 7 th and 8 th generation.

Generation Brand name Manufacturer Polymerisation
7/8 th Generation One-step Self-Etch One Coat 7.0 Coltène/Whaledent (AG, Altstätten, Switzerland) Light cured
Xeno IV Dentsply Caulk (Milford, DE, USA) Light cured
AdheSE One F (no mix) Ivoclar Vivadent, (Schaan, Principality of Liechtenstein) Light cured
G-BOND GC America (Alsip, IL, USA) Light cured
OptiBond All-In-One Kerr (Orange, CA, USA) Light cured
Clearfil S3 Bond Plus Kuraray (Tokyo, Japan) Light cured
Adper Easy one 3M ESPE (St. Paul, Minn. USA) Light cured
Bond force (no mix) Tokuyama Dental Light cured
Clearfill DC bond Kuraray (Tokyo, Japan) Dual cured
Xeno IV DC Dentsply Caulk (Milford, DE, USA) Dual cured
Futura bond DC Voco (Germany) Dual cured

References

1. Vaidyanathan TK, Vaidyanathan J. Review Recent Advances in the Theory and Mechanism of Adhesive Resin Bonding to Dentin: A Critical Review. Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater. 2009; 88 :558–578. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
2. Perdigão J. New developments in dental adhesion. Dent Clin North Am. 2007; 51 :333–357. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
3. Van Landuyt KL, Snauwaert J, De munck J, Peumans M, Yoshida Y, Poitevin A, et al. Systematic review of the chemical composition of contemporary dental adhesives. Biomaterials. 2007; 28 :3757–3785. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
4. Susin AH, Vasconcellos WA, Saad JR, Oliveira Junior OB. Tensile bond strength of self-etching versus total-etching adhesive systems under different dentinal substrate conditions. Braz Oral Res. 2007; 21 (1):81–86. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
5. Perdigão J. Dentin bonding-variables related to the clinical situation and the substrate treatment. Dent Mater. 2010; 26 :e24–37. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
6. Söderholm KJ. Dental adhesives how it all started and later evolved. J Adhes Dent. 2007; 9 (2):227–230. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
7. Mclean JW, Kramer IRH. A clinical and pathological evaluation of a sulphinic acid-activated resin for use in restorative dentistry. Br Dent J. 1952; 93 :255–269. 291–293. [ Google Scholar ]
8. Buonocore M. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res. 1955; 34 :849–853. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
9. Buonocore M, Marsui A, Gwinnett AJ. Penetration of resin dental materials into enamel surfaces with reference to bonding. Arch Oral Biol. 1968; 13 (1):61–70. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
10. Sezinando A. Looking for the ideal adhesive-A review. Rev port Estomatol Med Dent Cir Maxilofac. 2014;(4):194–206. [ Google Scholar ]
11. Swift E, Jr, Perdigao J, Heymann H. Bonding to enamel and dentin: a brief history and state of the art. Quintessence Int. 1995; 26 :95–110. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
12. Eick J, Wilko R, Anderson C, Sorensen S. Scanning electron microscopy of cut tooth surfaces and identification of debris by use of the electron microprobe. J Dent Res. 1970; 49 :1359–1368. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
13. Nakabayashi N, Kojima K, Masuhara E. The promotion of adhesion by the infiltration of monomers into tooth substrates. J Biomed Mater Res. 1982; 16 (3):265–273. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
14. Inokoshi S, Hosoda H, Harnirattisai C, Shimida Y, Tatsumi T. A study on the resin-impregnated layer of dentin. Part I. A comparative study on the decalcified and undecalcified section and the application of argon ion beam etching to disclose the resin- impregnated layer of dentin. Jpn J conserve Dent. 1990; 33 :427–442. [ Google Scholar ]
15. Bowen RL, Eick JD, Henderson DA, Anderson DW. Smear layer: removal and bonding considerations. Oper Dent Suppl. 1984; 3 :30–34. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
16. Price RB, Dérand T, Andreou P, Murphy D. The effect of two configuration factors, time, and thermal cycling on resin to dentin bond strengths. Biomaterials. 2003; 24 (6):1013–1021. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
17. De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, et al. A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res. 2005; 84 :118–132. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
18. Breschi L, Mazzoni A, De Stefano D, Ferrari M. Adhesion to intraradicular dentin: a review. J Adhes Sci Technol. 2009; 7 :1053e83. [ Google Scholar ]
19. Sideridou I, Tserki V, Papanastasiou G. Study of water sorption, solubilità and modulus of elasticity of light-cured dimethacrylate-based dental resins. Biomaterials. 2003; 24 :655–665. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
20. Feilzer AJ, de Gee AJ, Davidson CL. Setting stress in composite resin in relation to configuration of the restoration. J Dentl Researc. 1987; 66 (11):1636–1639. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
21. De la Macorra JC, Gomez-Fernandez S. Quantification of the configuration factor in Class I and II cavities and simulated cervical erosions. European Journal of Prosthodontic Restorative Dentistry. 1996; 4 (1):29–33. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
22. He Z, Shimada Y, Tagami J. The effects of cavity size and incremental technique on micro-tensile bond strength of resin composite in Class I cavities. Dental Materials. 2007; 23 (5):533–538. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
23. Perdigão J, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B, Braem M, Yildiz E, Yucel T, Vanherle G. The interaction of adhesive systems with human dentin. Am J Dent. 1996; 9 (4):167–173. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
24. Joseph P, Yadav C, Satheesh K, Rahna R. Comparative evaluation of the bonding efficacy of sixth, seventh and eight generation bonding agents: An in vitro study. Int Res J Pharm. 2013; 4 (9):143–147. [ Google Scholar ]
25. Buonocore M, Wileman W, Brudevold F. A report on a risen composition capable of bonding to human dentin surfaces. J Dent Res. 1956; 35 :846–851. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
26. Bowen RL. Adhesive bonding of various materials to hard tooth tissues II. Bonding to dentin promoted by a surface-active comonomer. J Dent Res. 1965; 44 :895–890. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
27. Kugel G, Ferrari M. The science of bonding: from first to sixth generation. JADA. 2000; 13 :20–25. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
28. American Dental Association Council on Dental Materials. Instruments and equipment. Dentin bonding systems: an update. JADA. 1987; 114 :91–95. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
29. Broome JC, Duke ES, Norling BK. Shear bond strengths of composite resins with three different adhesives [Abstract] J Dent Res. 1985; 64 :244. [ Google Scholar ]
30. Tao L, Pashley DH, Boyd L. The effect of different types of smear layers on dentin and enamel bond strengths. Dent Mater. 1988; 4 :208–216. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
31. Kanca J. A method for bonding to tooth structure using phosphoric acid as a dentin-enamel conditioner. Quintessence Int. 1991; 22 :285–290. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
32. Tay FR, Gwinnett AJ, Wei SHY. Structural evidence of a sealed tissue interface with Total etch wet bonding technique, in vivo. J Dent Res. 1994; 73 :629–636. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
33. Alex G. Adhesive considerations in the placement of direct composite restorations. Compend. 2008; 1 (1):20–25. [ Google Scholar ]
34. Leinfelder KF. Dentin adhesives for the twenty-first century. Dent Clin North Am. 2001; 45 (1):1–6. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
35. Pashly EL, Agee K, Pashly DH, Tay F. Effect of one versus two applications of an unfilled, all-in-one adhesive on dentine bonding. J Dent. 2002; 30 :83–90. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
36. Fabianelli A, Vichi A, Kugel G, Ferrari M. Influence of self-etching-priming bonding systems on sealing ability of Class II restorations: leakage and SEM evaluations. Paper presented at annual meeting of the International Association for Dental Research; Washington, D.C. 2000 April 6. [ Google Scholar ]
37. Mozner N, Salz U, Zimmermann J. Chemical aspects of self-etching enamel-dentin adhesives: a systematic review. Dent Mater. 2005; 21 :895–910. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
38. Nishiyama N, Tay FR, Fujita K. Hydrolysis of functional monomers in single-bottle self-etching primer-correlation of 13C NMR and TEM findings. J Dent Res. 2006; 85 :422–426. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
39. Tay FR, Pashly DH. Have dentin adhesives become too hydrophilic. Can Dent Assoc. 2003; 69 :726–731. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
40. Yaseen SM, Subba Reddy VV. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of two self-etching adhesive(sixth and seventh generation)on dentin of primary and permanent teeth: An in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2009 Jan-Mar; 27 (1):33–38. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
41. Pashley DH, Tay FR. Aggressiveness of contemporary self-etching adhesives. Part II: Etching effects on ungroud enamel. Dent Master. 2001; 17 (5):430–444. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
42. Başaran G, Ozer T, Devecioğlu Kama J. Comparison of a recently developed nanofiller self-etching primer adhesive with other self-etching primers and conventional acid etching. Eur J Orthod. 2009 Jun; 31 (3):271–275. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
43. Kasraei SH, Atai M, Khamverdi Z, Khalegh Nejad S. Effect of nanofiller addition to an experimental dentin adhesive on microtensile bond strength to human dentin. J Dent (Tehran) 2009; 6 (2):91–96. [ Google Scholar ]
44. Karami Nogourani M, Javadi Nejad Sh, Homayunzadeh M. Sealant Microleakage in Saliva-Contaminated Enamel: Comparison between three adhesive systems. J Dent Sch. 2010; 27 (4):197–204. [ Google Scholar ]
45. Yazici AR, Celik C, Ozgünaltay G, Dayangaç B. Bond strength of different adhesive systems to dental hard tissues. Oper Dent. 2007; 32 (2):166–172. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
46. Tay F, Pashley D, Suh B, Carvalho R, Itthagarun A. Single step adhesives are permeable membranes. J Dent. 2002; 30 :371–382. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
47. Deliperi S, Bardwell DN, Wegley C. Restoration interface microleakage using one total-etch and three self-etch adhesives. Oper Dent. 2007; 32 :179–184. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
48. Gwinnett AJ, Matsui A. A study of enamel adhesives. The physical relationship between enamel and adhesive. Arch Oral Biol. 1967; 12 :1615–1620. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
49. Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Mattar D, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P. Microtensile bond strengths of an etch and rinse and self-etch adhesive to enamel and dentin as a function of surface treatment. Oper Dent. 2003; 28 :647–660. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
50. Peumans M, Kanumilli P, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives: a systematic review of current clinical trials. Dent Mater. 2005; 21 :864–881. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
51. Carvalho RM, Mendonca JS, Santiago SL, et al. Effects of HEMA/solvent combinations on bond strength to dentin. J Dent Res. 2003; 82 :597–601. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
52. Van Meerbeek B, Dhem A, Goret-Nicaise M, Braem M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Comparative SEM and TEM examination of the ultrastructure of the resin-dentin interdiffusion zone. J Dent Res. 1993; 72 :495–501. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
53. Finger WJ, Balkenhol M. Practitioner variability effects on dentin bonding with an acetone-based one-bottle adhesive. J Adhes Dent. 1999; 1 :311–314. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
54. Van Meerbeek B, Van Landuyt K, De Munck J, et al. Technique-sensitivity of contemporary adhesives. Dent Mater J. 2005; 24 :1–13. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
55. Tay FR, Gwinnett JA, Wei SH. Micromorphological spectrum from overdrying to overwetting acid-conditioned dentin in water-free acetone-based, single-bottle primer / adhesives. Dent Mater. 1996; 12 :236–244. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
56. Hashimoto M, Tay FR, Svizero NR, Gee AJ, Feilzer AJ, Sano H, et al. The effects of common errors on sealing ability of total-etch adhesives. Dent Mater. 2006; 22 :560–568. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
57. Van Meerbeek B, Yoshida Y, Lambrechts P, et al. A TEM study of two water-based adhesive systems bonded to dry and wet dentin. J Dent Res. 1998; 77 :50–59. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
58. Van Meerbeek B. The “myth” of nanoleakage. J Adhes Dent. 2007; 9 :491–492. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
59. Pioch T, Staehle HJ, Duschner H, Garcia-Godoy F. Nanoleakage at the composite-dentin interface: a review. Am J Dent. 2001; 14 :252–258. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
60. Breschi L, Mazzoni A, Ruggeri A, Cadenaro M, Di Lenarda R, De Stefano Dorigo E. Dental adhesion review: aging and stability of the bonded interface. Dental Materials. 2008; 24 :90–101. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
61. Sundfeld RH, Valentino TA, Alexandre RS, Briso ALF, Sun-defeld MLMM. Hybrid layer thickness and resin tag length of a self-etching adhesive bondedto sound dentin. J Dent. 2005; 33 :675–681. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
62. De Munck J, Vargas M, Iracki J, Van Landuyt K, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. One-day bonding effectiveness of new self-etch adhesives to burcut enamel and dentin. Oper Dent. 2005; 30 (1):39–49. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
63. Kenshima S, Francci C, Reis A, Dourado Loguercio A, Eloy Rodrigues Filho L. Conditioning effect on dentin, resin tags and hybrid layer of different acidity self-etch adhesives applied to thick and thin smear layer. J Dent. 2006; 34 (10):775–783. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
64. Koshiro K, Sharanbir KS, Inoue S, Ikeda T, Sano H. New concept of resin-dentin interfacial adhesion: The nanointeraction zone. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B. 2006; 77 (2):401–408. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
65. Van Landuyt KL, De Munck J, Snauwaert J, Coutinho E, Poitevin A, Yoshida Y, et al. Monomer-solvent phase separation in one-step self-etch adhesives. J Dent Res. 2005; 84 :183–188. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
66. Peumans M, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Eight-year clinical evalution of a two-step self-etch adhesive with and without selective enamel etching. Dent Mater. 2010; 26 :1176–1184. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
67. Reis A, Grandi V, Carlotto L, Bortoli G, Patzlaff R, Accorinte MLR, et al. Effect of smear layer thickness and acidity of self-etching solutions on early and long-term bond strength to dentin. J Dent. 2005; 33 :549–559. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
68. Hashimoto M, Ito S, Tay FR, et al. Fluid movement across the resin-dentin interface during and after bonding. J Dent Res. 2004; 83 :843–848. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
69. Yeniad B, Albayrak AZ, Olcum NC, Avci D. Synthesis and photopolymerizations of new phosphonated monomers for dental applications. J Polym Sci Pt Polym Chem. 2008; 46 :2290–2299. [ Google Scholar ]
70. Van Landuyt KL, Snauwaert J, Peumans M, De Munck J, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. The role of HEMA in one-step self etch adhesives. Dent Mater. 2008; 24 :1412–1419. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
71. Hashimoto M, Ohno H, Sano H, Kaga M, Oguchi H. In vitro degradation of resin-dentin bonds analyzed by microtensile bond test, scanning and transmission electron microscopy. Biomaterials. 2003; 24 :3795–3803. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
72. Reis AF, Giannini M, Pereira PN. Influence of water-storage time on the sorption and solubility behavior of current adhesives and primer/adhesive mixtures. Oper Dent. 2007; 32 :53–59. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
73. Wang Y, Spencer P. Continuing etching of an all in- one adhesive in wet dentin tubules. J Dent Research. 2005; 84 (4):350–354. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
74. Spencer P, Wang Y. Adhesive phase separation at the dentin interface under wet bonding conditions. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. 2002; 62 (3):447–456. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
75. Hanabusa M, Mine A, Kuboki T, Momoi Y, Van Ende A, Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J. Bonding effectiveness of a new “multi-mode” adhesive to enamel and dentine. J Dent. 2012; 40 (6):475–484. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
76. Perdigao J, Sezinando A, Monteiro PC. Laboratory bonding ability of a multi-purpose dentin adhesive. Amer J Dent. 2012; 25 (3):153–158. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
77. Munoz MA, Luque I, Hass V, Reis A, Loguercio AD, Bombarda NH. Immediate bonding properties of universal adhesives to dentine. J Dent. 2013; 41 (5):404–411. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
78. Van Meerbeek B, Yoshihara K, Yoshida Y, Mine A, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL. State of the art of self-etch adhesives. Dental Materials. 2011; 27 :17–28. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
79. Erickson RL, Barkmeier WW, Kimmes NS. Bond strength of self-etch adhesives to pre-etched enamel. Dental Materials. 2009; 25 :1187–1194. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
80. Rotta M, Bresciani P, Moura SK, Grande RH, Hilgert LA, Baratieri LN, et al. Effects of phosphoric acid pretreatment and substitution of bonding resin on bonding effectiveness of self-etching systems to enamel. The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry. 2007; 9 :537–545. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
81. Boillagguet S, Gysi P, Wataha JC, Ciucchi B, Cattani M, Godin CH, et al. Bond strength of composite to dentin using conventional, one step, and self-etching adhesive systems. Journal of Dentistry. 2001; 29 :55–61. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
82. Van Landuyt KL, De Munck J, Mine A, Cardoso MV, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B. Filler debonding & subhybrid layer failures in self-etch adhesives. J Dent Res. 2010; 89 (10):1045–1050. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
83. De Munck J, Mine A, Poitevin A, Van Ende A, Cardoso MV, Van Landuyt KL, et al. Metaanalytic review of parameters involved in dentin bonding. Journal of Dental Research. 2012; 91 :351–357. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
84. Munoz MA, Luque-Martinez I, Malaquias P, Hass V. In vitro longevity of bonding properties of Universal Adhesives to dentin. Operative Dentistry. 2015:40–41. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
85. Peumans M, De Munck J, Van Landuty KL, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Eight-year clinical evaluation of a 2-step self-etch adhesive with and without selective enamel etching. Dental Materials. 2010; 26 (12):1176–1184. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
86. Frankenberger R, Lohbauer U, Roggendorf MJ, Naumann M, Taschner M. Selective enamel etching reconsidered: better than etch-and-rinse and self-etch. J Adhes Dent. 2008; 10 :339–344. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
87. Erickson RL, Barkmeier WW, Latta MA. The role of etching in bonding to enamel: a comparison of self-etching and etch-and-rinse adhesive systems, Dent. Mater. 2009; 25 :1459–1467. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
88. Fukegawa D, Hayakawa S, Yoshida Y, et al. Chemical interaction of phosphoric acid ester with hydroxyapatite. J Dent Res. 2006; 85 (10):941–944. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
89. Van Landuyt KL, Yoshida Y, Hirata I, et al. Influence of the chemical structure of functional monomers on their adhesive performance. J Dent Res. 2008; 87 (8):757–761. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
90. Yoshida Y, Yoshihara K, Nagaoka N, et al. Self-assembled Nano-layering at the Adhesive interface. J Dent Res. 2012; 91 (4):376–381. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
91. Yoshihara K, Yoshida Y, Hayakawa S, et al. Novel fluorocarbon functional monomer for dental bonding. J Dent Res. 2014; 93 (2):189–194. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
92. Tay FR, Pashley DH. Aggressiveness of contemporary self-etching systems. I: depth of penetration beyond dentin smear layers. Dent Mater. 2001; 17 :296–308. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
93. De Munck J, Van Meerbeek B, Yoshida Y, et al. Four-year water degradation of total-etch adhesives bonded to dentin. J Dent Res. 2003; 82 (2):136–140. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
94. Munoz MA, Sezinando A, Luque-Martinez I, Szesz AL, Reis A, Loguercio AD, Bombaeda NH, Perdigao J. Influence of a hydrophobic resin coating on the bonding efficacy of three of universal adhesives. J Dent. 2014; 42 :595–602. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
95. Tuncer D, Yazici AR, Ozgunaltay G, Dayangac B. Clinical evaluation of different adhesives used in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions: 24-month results. Aust Dent J. 2013; 58 :94–100. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
96. Yoshihara K, Nagaoka N, Sonoda A, Maruo Y, Makita Y, Okihara T. Effectiveness and stability of silane coupling agent incorporated in ‘universal’ adhesives. Dent Mater. 2016; 32 (10):1218–1225. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
97. Migliau G, Besharat LK, Sofan AAA, Sofan EAA, Romeo U. Endo-restorative treatment of a severly discolored upper incisor: resolution of the “aesthetic” problem through Componeer veneering System. Annali di Stomatologia. 2015; VI (3–4):113–118. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
98. Migliau G, Piccoli L, Besharat LK, Romeo U. Benchmarking matching color in composite restorations. Annali di Stomatologia. 2016; VII (1–2):29–37. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
99. Migliau G, Piccoli L, Besharat LK, Di Carlo S, Pompa G. Evaluation of over-etching technique in the endodontically treated tooth restoration. Annali di Stomatologia. 2015; VI (1):10–14. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Articles from Annali di Stomatologia are provided here courtesy of CIC Edizioni Internazionali