OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that the quality of the dentinal sealing provided by two-step etch-and-rinse adhesives cannot be altered by the addition of an extra layer of the respective adhesive or the application of a more hydrophobic, non-solvated resin. MATERIAL AND METHODS: full-crown preparations were acid-etched with phosphoric acid for 15 s and bonded with Adper Single Bond (3M ESPE), Excite DSC (Ivoclar/Vivadent) or Prime & Bond NT (Dentsply). The adhesives were used according to the manufacturers' instructions (control groups) or after application to dentin they were a) covered with an extra coat of each respective system or b) coated with a non-solvated bonding agent (Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Adhesive, 3M ESPE). Fluid flow rate was measured before and after dentin surfaces were acid-etched and bonded with adhesives. RESULTS: None of the adhesives or experimental treatments was capable to block completely the fluid transudation across the treated dentin. Application of an extra coat of the adhesive did not reduce the fluid flow rate of adhesive-bonded dentin (p>0.05). Conversely, the application of a more hydrophobic non-solvated resin resulted in significant reductions in the fluid flow rate (p<0.05) for all tested adhesives. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of the dentinal sealing provided by etch-and-rinse adhesives can be significantly improved by the application of a more hydrophobic, non-solvated bonding agent.

OBJETIVO: Determinar a rugosidade de superficies submetidas a diferentes tratamentos e correlacionar rugosidade com velocidade de escoamento de sistemas adesivos MATERIAL AND MÉTODOS: Lâminas de vidro foram utilizadas como substrato para avaliar a velocidade de escoamento dos sistemas adesivos Single Bond and Prime & Bond NT. Seis diferentes tratamentos de superfície foram comparados: 1- sem tratamento; 2 - silanização (SL); 3 - jateamento (J); 4 - J + SL; 5 - condicionamento com ácido fluorídrico a 10% (HF); 6 - HF + SL. Antes e após os tratamentos, foi mensurada a rugosidade das superficies (Ra, µm). Gotas de 10 µl de adesivo foram despositadas sobre as superficies e as velocidades de escoamento foram observadas durante 30 seg. Dados de velocidade de escoamento foram expressos em mm/s. Significâncias estatísticas entre grupos foram analisadas pelos testes ANOVA (um e dois critérios) e SNK. RESULTADOS: Houve diferenças significantes na velocidade de escoamento entre materiais (p < 0.001) e entre tratamentos (p < 0.001). Silanização diminuiu a velocidade de escoamento para ambos os adesivos em comparação aos grupos não silanizados (p < 0.05). Houve diferença entre rugosidades inicial e final somente para o grupo jateado, que se apresentou como o mais rugoso (p < 0.05). Silanização diminuiu a rugosidade das superficies jateadas (p < 0.05). Regressão linear não indicou correlação entre velocidade de escoamento e rugosidade (R = 0.173). CONCLUSÕES: Embora os tratamentos de superfície tenham produzido diferentes rugosidades, não produziram diferenças na velocidade de escoamento dos sistemas adesivos estudados. Silanização diminuiu a velocidade de escoamento dos sistemas adesivos.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the roughness of glass surfaces submitted to different treatments and to correlate it with the spreading velocity of two adhesive systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Glass slides were used as substrates to evaluate the spreading velocity of Single Bond and Prime & Bond NT adhesive systems. Six different surface treatments were compared: 1) no treatment; 2) silanization (SL); 3) sandblasting (SB); 4) SB + SL; 5) 10% hydrofluoric acid treatment (HF); 6) HF + SL. Before and after treatments, surface roughness was measured by a profilometer (Ra, µm). Drop volumes (10 µl) of the adhesive systems were deposited onto substrates with a micropipette to observe materials spreading during 30s. Data were expressed in mm/s as spreading velocity. Statistical significances among groups were analyzed using one-way and two-way-ANOVA designs and the SNK test. RESULTS: Significant differences in spreading velocity were found between materials (p < 0.001) and among treatments (p < 0.001). Silanization decreased the spreading velocity for both adhesives in comparison to groups where it was not performed (p < 0.05). Differences in roughness were found only for SB surfaces that were rougher than the others (p < 0.05). Silanization decreased the roughness of SB surfaces (p < 0.05). Linear regression did not indicate any correlation between spreading velocity and roughness (R = 0.173). CONCLUSION: Although surface treatments yielded different roughness, they did not provide differences in the spreading velocity of the simplified bonding systems studied. Silanization decreased bonding systems' spreading velocities.