The present investigation observed the sealing ability of low shrinkage composite resins in large and deep cavities, placed and photocured in one increment. Large, deep cavities (5.0 mm diameter and 2.5 mm deep) surrounded by enamel were prepared in bovine teeth, which were then divided into five groups. Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4: acid conditioning + Adper Single Bond (3M/ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA) and restoration with Aelite LS Posterior (BISCO Inc. Schaumburg, IL, USA) (G1); Filtek Z-350 (3M/ESPE,St Paul, MN, USA) (G2); Filtek Z-350 Flow (3M/ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA) (G3); Premisa (KERR Corporation, Orange, CA, USA) (G4). Group 5: Silorane Adhesive system (3M/ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA) + restoration with Filtek Low Shrinkage Posterior P90 (3M/ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA). After polymerization, the teeth were immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsine solution and immediately washed. Using the Imagetool Software, the extent of dye along the margins was calculated as a percentage of total perimeter. The restorations were then transversally sectioned and the depth of dye penetration was calculated in mm, using the same software. Kruskal-Wallis analysis for all groups showed no statistical differences for extent (p = 0.54) or depth (p = 0.8364) of dye penetration. According to this methodology, the so-called low shrinkage composite resins had the same sealing ability compared to regular and flowable nanocomposite materials.

The present clinical study aimed to assess the postoperative sensitivity (POS) after 48 hours and seven days in occlusal restorations bonded with three different adhesive systems, two of them containing glutaraldehyde. The restorative procedures were performed using the three-step etch-and-rinse Adper SBMP-Plus adhesive (SBMP), the two-step etch-and-rinse Gluma Comfort One Bond + Desensitizer adhesive (GC+D) and the all-in-one self-etching/priming I Bond (IB) adhesive, which also has glutaraldehyde in its formula. All cavities were restored with Filtek Supreme nanoparticle composite resin. After 48 hours and seven days the patients were recalled and the postoperative sensitivity evaluated. The data analyzed by non-parametric Friedman test showed no significant differences in POS among the three tested groups after 48 hours and seven days.

This literature review article addresses the types and the main components of different etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesive systems available in the market, and relates them to their function, possible chemical interactions and infuence of handling characteristics. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images are presented to characterize the interface between adhesives and dentin. Adhesive systems have been recently classifed according to their adhesion approaches in etch-and-rinse, self-etch and glass ionomer. The etch-and-rinse systems require a specifc acid-etch procedure and may be performed in two or three steps. Self-etch systems employ acidic monomers that demineralize and impregnate dental substrates almost at the same time. These systems are separated in one or two steps. Some advantages and defciencies were noted for etch-and-rinse and self-etch approaches, mainly for the simplifed ones due to some chemical associations and interactions. The SEM micrographs illustrate different relationships between adhesive systems and dental structures, particularly dentin. The knowledge of composition, characteristics and mechanisms of adhesion of each adhesive system is of fundamental importance to permit the adoption of ideal bonding strategies under clinical conditions.