iBOND Adhesive Scientific GB

Heraeus Kulzer Adhesives
30
25
20
15
10
Scientific Information
Index of Contents
Preface 5 Gluma® Solid Bond 31

Introduction 6 Description of the product 32
Clinical application/Awards 33
iBond® Self Etch 9 In vivo studies 34
Description of the product 10 In vitro studies 35
Clinical application 11
In vivo studies 13 Gluma® Desensitizer 39
In vitro studies 15 Description of the product 40
Gluma® Comfort® Bond + Desensitizer 23 In vivo studies 42
Description of the product 24 In vitro studies 48
In vivo studies 26 References 50
In vitro studies 28

Preface
Many patients are familiar with the unpleasant, stabbing Hypersensitivity of teeth can also occur after placement of
pain experienced when they consume hot or cold drinks and adhesive restorations because of many reasons. This event
food or when the teeth come into contact with cold water or is known as postoperative hypersensitivity.
cold air during dental treatment.
The dentine adhesives Gluma Comfort Bond + Desensitizer
Etiologically speaking, hypersensitivity is not a pathological (total-etch system) and iBond Self Etch (self-etch system)
event in the narrower sense of the term. Hypersensitive also contain the active ingredients for desensitisation and
teeth can, however, have a decidedly negative impact on prevention of postoperative sensitivities. Independent stu-
the day-to-day quality of life of the patient and can also dies have demonstrated that use of either product can redu-
cause the patient considerable discomfort during dental ce postoperative problems to a minimum after placement of
treatment. a filling.
Gluma Desensitizer has been used successfully for the All products – Gluma Desensitizer, Gluma Solid Bond,
treatment and prevention of hypersensitive dentine since Gluma Comfort Bond + Desensitizer and iBond Self
it was first marketed in 1992. The product became very Etch– represent many years of cumulative expertise in the
quickly established worldwide because it is easy to use, adhesive technique and in the treatment of hypersensiti
effective and reliable, both under direct and indirect vity.
restorations (e. g. in combination with a standard 3-step
adhesive like Gluma Solid Bond) and with exposed This scientific information is intended to give you an over-
cervical areas. The very wide global acceptance enjoyed view of the impressive list of independent and internal
by Gluma Desensitizer has been confirmed by many data that demonstrate the reliability of these products. Of
independent studies. course, the best way to prove that they are indeed easy
to use and effective is to try them out for yourself.
Dr. Marcus Hoffmann Dr. Janine Schweppe

R&D Manager Bonding Materials Scientific Marketing Manager
Heraeus Kulzer GmbH Wehrheim (Germany) Heraeus Kulzer GmbH Hanau (Germany)

Introduction
Dentine hypersensitivity (DHS) is an extremely widespread Theories about sensitivity

phenomenon. It is estimated that in the United States of
America more than forty million people suffer from dentine Theories about odontoblasts
hypersensitivity. Statistics produced by the German Dental Experts are not quite in agreement about what triggers off
Association indicate that 10 –15 % of patients are treated DHS. Up until a few decades ago, the theory that the pain
for dentine hypersensitivity annually and that the trend has reaction was a conventional, neural reply to a stimulus was
increased rapidly during the past few years. In addition, popular (“Odontoblast Theory”).
further increases in DHS are predictable as the population This theory is countered by the fact that, to date, no
increases in age. neurons have been found in dentine. Although nerve ends
are in contact with the pulpal sections of the odontoblasts
Dentine hypersensitivity and possibly extend into the predentine, one has to assume
that there is no nerve tissue in dentine.
Definition
Tooth sensitivity or, to put it precisely, dentine hypersen Hydrodynamic theory
sitivity is defined clinically as being a painful reaction Dentine only becomes sensitive/hypersensitive when exposed
to a non-harmful, sensory stimulus. Hypersensitivity is a in the mouth. Dentine hypersensitivity does not occur as
chronic condition with acute exacerbation which differs long as the dentine is covered with enamel or cementum.
from dentine or pulpal pain in that the patient can localise The majority of oral physiologists are of the opinion that
the pain sensation accurately. DHS is caused by liquid moving in open dentine tubules
(“Hydrodynamic theory”). Dentine tubules are filled with
Causes liquid. Once the tubules on the surface are exposed to a
Dentine hypersensitivity is defined as being pain triggered stimulus, the liquid pillars transfer it hydraulically to the
off by chemical, thermal, tactile or osmotic stimuli which nerve receptors on the pulp/dentine boundary. For example,
affects exposed dentine rather than by a tooth defect or a stream of air passing over an exposed area of dentine
other pathological cause. moves the liquid pillar – the movement is transferred to
From the etiologic point of view, elimination of the protec- the odontoblasts and exerts a direct or indirect stimulus
tive enamel layer is often caused by the following: on the nerve fibres thus causing pain.
 Attrition due to forces acting on the occlusal surface Although this theory of hydraulics or hydrodynamics was
 Abrasion caused by incorrect toothbrushing techniques published by Brännström during the sixties and has yet
(depends on the frequency, type of brush and abrasive to be proven (Brännström 1966), it is the only hypothesis
ness of the toothpaste) with which all scientific observations coincide. What also
 Eroded areas due to environmental effects or constitu speaks in favour of this theory is that every reduction in
ents of foodstuffs or elimination of DHS coincides with the dentine tubules
Not only elimination of the enamel, but also elimination being sealed.
of the cementum in the root region may cause DHS.
The following may eliminate the cementum:
 Acute or chronic periodontal diseases
 Incorrect toothbrushing techniques
 Chronic trauma due to habits
 Periodontal surgery
Prior to commencing topical treatment for DHS, the
etiologic and/or predisposing factors must be diagnosed
and, if possible, modified or eliminated.

INTRODUCTION
Methods of treating hypersensitive areas of teeth Postoperative hypersensitivity
Conventional treatment Placing adhesive restorations may lead to postoperative

The objective of all DHS treatment is to seal exposed hypersensitivity meaning that the restored tooth is sensitive
dentine tubules. Should the dentine be exposed to such a to occlusal loading and is irritated by temperature changes.
degree that restorative treatment is required, this may also Postoperative sensitivity can be caused by inadvertently
seal the tubules. A wide range of topical treatment is availa- etching exposed dentine and/or inadequate sealing of the
ble for eliminating DHS, including: dentine surface with bonding agent resulting in the dentine
 Special toothpaste liquid rushing out and associated irritation of the nerve
 Local fluoridation ends. This movement of liquid can be blocked by applying
 Precipitation of small-grained, antisoluble salts Gluma Desensitizer.
 Sealing the surface with polymerising substances
 Intratubular obturation by precipitating proteins Preventing postoperative hypersensitivity
There are various causes of postoperative hypersensitivity
(Duroux & Cimasoni 1991, Prati et al. 2001) with adhesive filling techniques. Working carefully with
the use of a rubber dam is always recommended to prevent
Treating with Gluma Desensitizer contamination of the operating area.
Gluma Desensitizer is an especially effective alternative
type of treatment. It functions by reducing the permeability Possible problems in the techniques used for adhesive
of the dentine by precipitating plasma proteins to seal the filling treatment:
peripheral dentine tubules. This halts movement of the  Overetching the dentine: The longer the dentine is
tubule liquid which causes the pain. This is also referred etched, the deeper the woven collagen fibrils which the
to as “Intradentinal Sealing” (Schüpbach et al. 1997). adhesive must penetrate are exposed. If the dentine is
etched for too long, the bonder cannot fully permeate the
etched area, resulting in hydrolysis of the non-impregna-
ted woven collagen fibrils.
 Dehydrating the dentine: After etching, the decalcified
area of the dentine is mainly made up of a layer of loose
collagen fibrils, which is supported by the stored water.
If the dentine is dried excessively after etching and
rinsing, this collagen matrix collapses to a dense, matted
layer. These collapsed woven fibrils prevent the adhesive
penetrating the exposed collagen matrix.
 Inadequate marginal seal: Inadvertent saliva contamin
ation during filling treatment can cause marginal gaps.
The use of a rubber dam is therefore recommended to
prevent the cavity from becoming contaminated by saliva
and blood.

 Exceeding the expiry date: Adhesives exhibit a limited  Contamination caused by moisture or oil: Lubricating oil
shelf life, particularly if they contain chemical com- from the compressor or handpieces can contaminate a
pounds for self-curing. The materials should be stored preparation and prevent successful bonding. The air
according to instructions to ensure an optimum shelf used for drying the tooth structure and adhesive should
life. Dispose of the materials immediately after the ex- not contain any oil or moisture. To check that the air does
piry date. not contain any oil, test the air jet on a sheet of filter
 Failure of the dentine bonder: Using unsuitable products paper.
and ignoring the manufacturer’s recommendations, e. g.  Cavity linings: (e.g. glass ionomer cement) can detach
with regard to times and working procedure, can impair from the dentine beneath the filling, after the filling has
the dentine bond resulting in pain. Ensure that the been placed. This can result in microcracks, which lead
practice personnel adhere to the correct working proce- to complaints when occlusal loading is applied. Applying
dure. a suitable bonder normally eliminates the need for
 Problems when light curing: Inadequate light output additional cavity lining.
from the polymerisation lamp, e.g. due to an old bulb, a
contaminated fibre optic or deterioration in the perfor-
mance of the filter, can affect the quality of polymerisa-
tion and consequently that of the whole restoration.
Check the output of the polymerisation unit regularly.

iBond Self Etch
®
iBond® Self Etch
Description of the product
iBOND Self Etch is a light-curing self-etching one Composition:

component bonding agent for use in combination with  iBOND Self Etch is an acetone/water-based formu-
adhesive restorations. Separate conditioning (etching) lation of light-activated methylacrylate resins.
of the enamel and dentine is not required; however,
the use of an additional etching gel on the enamel Indications:
before application of iBOND Self Etch will not have a  Bonding of direct light-cured composite restora-
negative influence on the bond strength. iBOND Self tions (including Polyglas and compomers)
Etch was developed for bonding composite resin  Bonding of indirect restorations in combinati-
materials (e. g., composite, compomer and Polyglas®) on with a light-curing luting cement: porcelain,
to the hard tooth structure. iBOND Self Etch etches, Polyglas, and composite restorations (inlays,
primes, bonds, and desensitises in one step. onlays, veneers, crowns)
 Sealing hypersensitive areas of teeth
Advantages:
 Based on Heraeus Kulzer bonding expertise and
more than 4 years market experience with self-
etching, all-in-one adhesives
 High bond strength to enamel and dentine
 Excellent marginal sealing
 Proven worldwide in over 15 research centres
 Easy, fast and safe application with only one coat
 Etching, priming, bonding and desensitising in a
single step
 Improved bottle nozzle enables a precise dosage
avoids dripping
 Storage at room temperature after first use
Clinical application
Application of iBOND Self Etch
Shake Dispense Close immediately
Dip brush Apply 1x Agitate for 20 seconds
Air dry Glossy surface Light cure for 20 seconds

(if not, apply additional coats)
Clinically proven worldwide –
Study Overview
External Testing of iBOND Self Etch by 15 Study Groups Worldwide
Dr. Miller, Prof. van Meerbeek, Prof. Frankenberger, Prof. Finger,

Reality Research Lab, University of Leuven, University of Erlangen, University of Cologne,
USA Belgium Germany Germany
Prof. Lee, Prof. Ernst,

University of University of Mainz,
Loma Linda, Germany
USA
Dr. Lu, Prof. Haller,

University of University of Ulm,
Loma Linda, Germany
USA
Prof. Thompson, Prof. Hannig,

University of University of Saarland,
San Antonio, Germany
USA
Prof. Soderholm, Prof. Uno,

University of University of Tokyo,
Florida, Japan
USA
Prof. Degrange, Dr. Yapp, Dr. Ilie, Prof. Cerutti, Dr. Rupf,
University of Paris, The Dental Advisor, University of Munich, University of Brescia, University of Leipzig,
France USA Germany Italy Germany
in vivo
in vitro
12
IN VIVO STUDIES iBOND Self Etch
First clinical results with

iBond® Self Etch
Clinical evaluation of a new all-in-one adhesive in class V restorations
Source: Karl-Johan M. Soderholm, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
Data on file
Objective: Conclusion:
The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical After 3 months, all the placed restorations are still in use
performance of class V restorations bonded with and perform without any signs of postoperative symptoms.
iBOND Self Etch over an observation time up to 48 Comparing the restorations regarding marginal differences
months. and aesthetic performance does not suggest that there are
any differences in performance between these two adhe-
Materials and Methods: sive materials after 3 months of clinical service. After 3
A total of 84 restorations (42 per adhesive) were placed months, one cannot draw any conclusions about the true
in a total of 21 patients and are evaluated after 3, 12, clinical performance over time of the two products, but
24, and 48 months. there is no doubt that the results are encouraging.
The adhesive to be evaluated was iBOND Self Etch
(Heraeus Kulzer) in comparison to Clearfil SE Bond
(Kuraray). The restorative material in both cases was
Venus (Heraeus Kulzer).
Results
Until July 2007, 70 (35 per group) of 84 placed Alpha-ratings in class V after 3 months
restorations have been evaluated after 3 months.
%
100
80
60
100
100
100
100
97
97
97
97
40
20
0
Retention Marginal Marginal Postoperative
integrity discoloration sensitivity
 Clearfil SE Bond  iBOND Self Etch
13
IN VIVO STUDIES iBOND Self Etch
Clinical results with iBOND® Self Etch

in anterior teeth
Use of a self-etching all-in-one adhesive in class III cavities in the
permanent dentition – 6-month report
Source: Claus-Peter Ernst, Anke Schattenberg,
University of Mainz, Germany
Data on file
Objective: Conclusion:
The aim of the study was to establish whether iBOND Self Based on the very limited assessment period of 6 months,
Etch self-etching adhesive could guarantee clinical and the initial conclusion is that there does not seem to be any
aesthetic marginal integrity of filled class III cavities over problem with marginal discoloration when using iBOND
a two-year study period. Self Etch. The assessment criterion of marginal gap was
always within the anticipated parameters of an effective
Materials and Methods: adhesive system with assessments A and B. In the case
A total of 72 fillings were placed in 38 patients up to of postoperative sensitivity assessment A also indicates
March 2007; it was possible to carry out a follow-up excellent sealing of the dentin surface and a reduction in
examination of all the fillings after three months in July technique sensitivity.
2007. The class III cavities were preconditioned with
iBOND Self Etch self-etching adhesive (Heraeus Kulzer)
according to the manufacturer’s instructions and filled
with Venus microhybrid composite (Heraeus Kulzer), after
determining the correct tooth shade for each patient. The
fillings were assessed according to Ryge and CDA criteria
by two examiners.
Results
Assessment A after 3 months in %

%
100
80
60
100
100
94
94
40
20
0
Marginal Secondary Marginal Postoperative
integrity caries discoloration problems
14
IN VITRO STUDIES iBOND Self Etch
Microtensile bond strength to dentine
μ-TBS trials on dentine

Source: Roland Frankenberger, Sergej A. Nikolaenko,
University of Erlangen, Germany
Data on file
Objective: s torage in water for 24 hours at 37 ºC using a microtensile

The objective of this in vitro study was to measure the machine at a displacement speed of 1 mm/min. The mean
microtensile bonding strength of five different adhesives. bond strengths were analysed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov
test and the Wilcoxon test (p= 0.05). Samples that frac-
Materials and Methods tured before the test were included in the measurement
The bonding strength of the composite Filtek Z250 using 0 MPa.
(3M ESPE) when bonded to dentine using different adhe-
sives was measured. The following adhesives were used: Conclusion:
iBOND Self Etch (Heraeus Kulzer), G-Bond (GC), Clearfil In this study, iBOND Self Etch shows equivalent or sub-
SE Bond (Kuraray), Clearfil S3 Bond (Kuraray), and Syntac stantially better bond strength than Syntac Total Etch and
Total Etch (Ivoclar Vivadent). Adhesive and composite were G-Bond or Clearfil S3 Bond and demonstrates the best
applied to a class I cavity, and then adhesion to the cavity results in the all-in-one group of adhesives.
floor was determined. The tests were carried out after
Results
The mean microtensile bond strengths in MPa with Microtensile bond strengths on dentine in MPa
standard deviation on dentine were:
iBOND Self Etch, 45.2±8.2 MPa Multi Step All-in-One
G-Bond, 44.4±7.4 70
Clearfil SE Bond, 59.4±6.3 60
Clearfil S3 Bond, 27.2±2.9 50
40
Syntac Total Etch, 50.4±8.4
30
The differences between iBOND Self Etch and
20
Syntac Total Etch, as well as between 10
iBOND Self Etch and G-Bond, were not significant. 0
Syntac Clearfil SE G-Bond Clearfil S3 Bond iBOND
Total Etch Bond Self
Etch
15
Marginal integrity at the enamel

and dentine
Marginal integrity of class II composite fillings with iBOND Self Etch
Source: Bernd Haller, University Hospital Ulm, Germany
Data on file
Objective: plastic resin replicas, which were sputtered with gold.

The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate, with the The replicas were assessed in the SEM at 300–500 x
aid of quantitative SEM marginal analysis, the extent to magnification based on the marginal criteria of seamless
which iBOND Self Etch could prevent the formation of transition, marginal gap, tooth margin fracture and com
marginal gaps at the proximal enamel margins and cervical posite margin fracture. Furthermore, a dye penetration test
dentine margins in class II composite fillings with a dentine was performed on the test teeth using 0.5 % basic fuchsin
interface. solution (24 h, 37 °C). The Kruskal-Wallis H test and the
Wilcoxon test were used for statistical analysis.
Materials and Methods:
Two two-surface class II cavities were prepared in 20 caries- Conclusion:
free extracted third molars and each cavity was filled with The marginal adaptation of iBOND Self Etch at the dentine
composite (Venus, Heraeus Kulzer). One of the following margins was not only very good initially but also stable after
bonding systems was used for 10 of the test cavities: loading. The dentine marginal integrity in the SEM after
Clearfil S3 Bond (Kuraray), iBOND GLUMA inside (Heraeus thermomechanical loading was comparable to that of
Kulzer), iBOND Self Etch (Heraeus Kulzer) and OptiBond Clearfil S3 Bond and it was significantly superior not only
FL (Kerr). After the fillings were finished and polished, the to that of its forerunner iBOND GLUMA inside but also to
teeth were stored in water for 24 h at 37 °C. An impression that of the OptiBond FL multi-step, etch-and-rinse system.
was then taken of the restored proximal surfaces using a Phosphoric acid etching (OptiBond FL) at the enamel
low viscosity A-silicone (Flexitime, Heraeus Kulzer). The test margins produced optimal marginal integrity without any
teeth were then subjected to thermocycling (1500x, 55/5 °C, marginal gaps, though there was no significant difference
25 s) and mechanical loading (TML) in a masticatory load in enamel marginal integrity between iBOND Self Etch
simulator (50,000x, 50 N) and a new impression was then and Clearfil S3 Bond.
taken. The silicone impressions were used for fabricating
Results
Perfect integrity at cervical dentine margins before and after TML in %

%
100
80
60
90,5
95,8
92,8
99,4
99,3
100
100
86
40
20
0
OptiBond iBOND GLUMA Clearfil S3 iBOND
FL inside Bond Self Etch
 before TML  after TML
16
Shear bond strength of iBond® Self Etch

on primary tooth dentine
SBS comparison of one-step dentin bonding systems on primary tooth
dentin
Source: B. Nelson, R. Grabowsky, H. Lu, W. Okumura, J. Peterson,
Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, USA
IADR 2007 New Orleans, Poster 1992
Objective: erculite XRV Unidose composite (Kerr) was bonded to

H
To compare shear bond strengths (SBS) of composite the dentin surface. After 1000 cycles of 5 – 55 °C thermo
materials to primary dentin when used with various one- cycling, the specimens were tested in MTS machine with
step dentin bonding agents. shear force until failure occurred. Load at failure was
recorded in Newton, and bond strength was calculated
Materials and Methods: into Mega-Pascal. The debonded surfaces were evaluated
Extracted primary teeth were divided into 4 groups of for cohesive or adhesive failures.
15 specimens each. The teeth were mounted in phenolic
rings with acrylic resin and wet-ground to expose an experi Conclusions:
mental dentin testing surface of at least 2.5 mm in Different dentin bonding agents created different shear
diameter. The following bonding agents were used in each bond strengths between the composite and the primary
group: group I (control) – Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray), dentin. iBOND Self Etch appears to have the highest
group II – Adper Prompt L-Pop (3M ESPE), group III – bonding strength on primary tooth dentin, when taking
iBOND Self Etch (Heraeus Kulzer), and group IV – cohesive failure into account.
Clearfil S3 Bond (Kuraray). A 2.38 mm projection of
Results
Shear bond strength of the tested adhesives 6 specimens in iBOND Self Etch group had
MPa cohesive failures in dentin, while all the other
specimens broke in the bonding interface.
35
C Means of SBS (MPa) are listed in the following
30
25
BC table with standard deviation in parentheses.
20 AB A 1-way ANOVA test showed that the bonding
15 A agent had a statistically significant influence
10 on SBS.
5
0
Clearfil SE Clearfil S3 Adper iBOND
Bond Bond Prompt L-Pop Self
Etch
Shear bond strength (standard deviation) in MPa
Clearfil S3 Clearfil SE Adper iBOND

Bond Bond Prompt L-Pop Self Etch Means with the same superscripted letter are not
24 (6) bc
17 (10) ab
12 (6) a
29 (6) c statistically different from each other at p < 0.05.
17
Microtensile bond strength of

iBond® Self Etch
In vitro microtensile strength of different bonding systems to human
enamel and dentin
Source: Jeffrey Y. Thompson, University of Texas, San Antonio, USA,
Erica Teixeira, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA
Data on file
Objective: the pulp chambers were sealed with composite resin. The
The objective of this in vitro study was to examine micro- bonded assemblies (n=20 per group) were stored in water
tensile bond strengths to human dentin and enamel of for one day at 37 ºC and then sectioned perpendicular to
different adhesives. the bonded interface into approximately 1 mm thick
beams with a diamond saw. Microtensile bond tests were
Materials and Methods: performed for all specimens using a table-top material
Human teeth were cleaned of debris. In half of the teeth, tester (EZ test, Shimadzu Co., Kyoto, Japan) at a crosshead
the occlusal surface was ground flat until exposure of the speed of 1 mm/min. Bond strength data was subjected to
dentin, and the other half, until exposure of enamel. The one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey test at 95 % level of
bonding procedures followed the manufacturers’ recom- confidence.
mendations. The adhesive systems evaluated in this study
were: GLUMA Comfort Bond (Heraeus Kulzer), Prime&Bond Conclusion:
NT (Dentsply), Xeno IV (Dentsply), G-Bond (GC), Clearfil iBOND Self Etch was equivalent to the other self-etching
SE Bond (Kuraray), Clearfil S3 Bond (Kuraray), and iBOND bonding agents in regard to microtensile bond strength to
Self Etch (Heraeus Kulzer). Six to seven teeth (min. three enamel, except for Clearfil SE Bond, which had a statisti-
for enamel and three for dentin groups) were prepared for cally higher mean strength. For microtensile bond strength
each material. A crown was built up incrementally over the to dentin, iBOND Self Etch was statistically the same as
adhesive resin using a resin composite (Venus, Heraeus the other self-etching bonding agents, except for Clearfil
Kulzer) for all groups. The roots were then removed, and SE Bond and Clearfil S3 Bond.
Results
The mean results with standard deviation for Microtensile bond strength to dentin of tested all-in-one adhesives
microtensile bond strength to enamel/dentin were:
GLUMA Comfort Bond, 28.4±9.6/46.3±10.2 MPa
Prime&Bond NT, 28.7±12.3/42.1±9.8 40

Clearfil SE Bond, 28.8±9.8/54.7±16.4 35
30
Clearfil S3 Bond, 19.5±9.9/36.2±12.5
25
Xeno IV, 18.0±7.2/23.2±12.6
20
G-Bond, 17.8±7.3/17.1±7.6 15
iBOND Self Etch, 17.4±7.0/25.7±9.6 10
5
0
Clearfil S3 Xeno IV G-Bond iBOND
Bond Self
Etch
18
Marginal integrity of iBond® Self Etch
In vitro investigation on the marginal and internal adaptation of diffe-

rent bonding agents and composites in class II cavities
Source: Matthias Hannig, University of Saarland, Homburg, Germany
Data on file
Objective: (1500 x, 2/60 ºC, 45/7/45 s), and chewing simulation (ML)
The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the (200,000 x). Analysis of internal adaptation was done
marginal and internal adaptation of different bonding using the dye penetration test after chewing simulation.
agents and composites. Here, discontinuity was defined as follows: an interruption
in the transition from composite to dental substance
Materials and Methods: (e.g., marginal gaps, hairline cracks, crevices). The follow-
Class II cavities with small occlusal cavity, cervical margin in ing adhesives were examined: iBOND GLUMA inside
cementum, and chamfered proximal enamel margins were (Heraeus Kulzer) and iBOND Self Etch (Heraeus Kulzer).
prepared using caries-free, extracted human teeth. The Venus A3 (Heraeus Kulzer) was used as the composite
two adhesives were applied according to the manufacturer’s material.
instructions, and the composite restoration was prepared
using the incremental technique. Inspection then took Conclusion:
place using the incident light microscope. The analysis of In strain tests, iBOND Self Etch demonstrates more than
marginal adaptation was performed by SEM marginal gap 50 % fewer marginal gaps compared to iBOND GLUMA
analysis by means of the replica method after storage for inside. With iBOND Self Etch, after storage in water for 24
24 hours in water (24h), thermocycling (TC) hours, no marginal gaps were found on enamel or dentine.
Results
Percentage of discontinuity in enamel and dentine
[%]
100
80
60
40
20
0
24h TC ML 24h TC ML
enamel dentine
 iBOND Gluma inside  iBOND Self Etch
19
Microtensile bond strength on

enamel and dentine
µ-TBS on enamel and dentin
Source: Bart van Meerbeek, University of Leuven, Belgium
Data on file
Objective: grinder in order to obtain a standardized application layer.

The objective of this in vitro study was to investigate the The adhesives were applied according to the manufacturer’s
bonding effectiveness and interaction with enamel and instructions, and the composite Z100 (3M ESPE) was
dentin of iBOND Self Etch compared to iBOND GLUMA built up to a height of 5 – 6 mm. The samples were then
inside. stored in water for 24 hours at 37 ºC. The teeth were cut
perpendicular to the bonding surface into rectangular sam-
Materials and Methods: ples. The 48 samples obtained were shear-loaded to fail-
The adhesives iBOND Self Etch (Heraeus Kulzer) and ure using an LRX test machine at a displacement speed of
iBOND GLUMA inside (Heraeus Kulzer) were examined. 1 mm/min.
The enamel samples were produced by grinding the lingual
and buccal enamel from extracted human third molars. Conclusion:
The occlusal third of the teeth was removed to produce Compared with iBOND GLUMA inside, iBOND Self Etch
the dentin samples. A thin layer was removed at the sur- demonstrates better bond strength to enamel, whereby a
face using a high speed medium-grit (100 μm) diamond clinical improvement of the marginal integrity is to be
expected.
Results
The microtensile bond strengths in MPa with Microtensile bond strength to enamel/dentin in MPa
standard deviation for enamel/dentin were
20
15.6±11.8/16.2±4.3 for iBOND Self Etch and
18
8.3±15.2/18.7±10.0 for iBOND GLUMA inside.
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
iBOND GLUMA inside iBOND Self Etch
 Enamel  Dentin
20
Shear bond strength and marginal adaptation

to dentine
Test on the shear bond strength and marginal adaptation at the dentine
of AdheSE One, Xeno V and iBOND Self Etch
Source: Research & Development, Heraeus Kulzer Wehrheim, Germany
Data on file
Objective: the marginal gap, extracted human molars (n=8) were cut
The aim of this in vitro study was to test the shear bond down to the dentine; class I cavities were prepared in the
strength and marginal adaptation at the dentine of three dentine and filled with Venus composite (Heraeus Kulzer)
new self-etching all-in-one adhesives. after application of the adhesive. The test teeth were then
stored for 10 minutes in water. The marginal gap was de-
Materials and Methods: termined by surface analysis of the digitised images using
The self-etching all-in-one adhesives tested were AdheSE the Analysis Soft Imaging programme (Olympus) with
One (Ivoclar Vivadent), Xeno V (Dentsply) and iBOND Self measurement of the largest marginal gap respectively.
Etch (Heraeus Kulzer). The adhesives were used according
to the manufacturer’s instructions in both tests. Conclusion:
The shear bond strength was determined using the Ultra- iBOND Self Etch exhibited the best results at the dentine
dent technique (template with a 2.38 mm diameter) on with regard to shear bond strength and marginal
extracted human molars with an exposed dentine surface adaptation.
(n=8). The composite used for the tests was Venus
(Heraeus Kulzer). Following preparation, the test teeth
were stored in water for 24 h at 37 °C. The shear strength
was determined in a universal testing machine (Zwick
Z010) with a thrust speed of 1 mm/min. In order to test
Results
Mean shear bond strength at the dentine in MPa
The shear bond strength at the dentine was 31.2 40

35
± 10.7 MPa for AdheSE One, 34.1 ± 8.6 MPa for
30
Xeno V, and 35.7 ± 2.1 MPa for iBOND Self Etch. 25
With regard to gap-free marginal adaptation at the 20
dentine of the teeth tested, AdheSE One attained 15
0 %, Xeno V 50 % and iBOND Self Etch 100 %. 10
5
0
Xeno V AdheSE One iBOND Self Etch
Mean of the maximum marginal gaps at the dentine in µm

18
16
14
12
8
6
4
2
0
Xeno V AdheSE One iBOND Self Etch
21
“Battle of the Bond” –

Shear bond strength of iBond® Self Etch
In vitro evaluation of the dentin bond strength of the
experimental self-etching system iBOND Self Etch
Source: Michel Degrange, Biomaterials Lab, University of Paris, France
Data on file
Objective: 600 mW/cm2 was required). The bonded samples were

The objective of this in vitro study was to assess the dentin stored in water and tested approximately 10 minutes after
bond strength of iBOND Self Etch. bonding. Shear bond strength was measured using a guil-
lotine-type device on the tensile machine at a cross-head
Materials and Methods: speed of 5 mm/min until fracture occurred. The shear
iBOND Self Etch was tested in four practical courses of bond strength values were recorded in an EXCEL table as
the “Battle of the Bond”. The trials took place in meeting the tests were conducted. Shear bond data were statisti-
rooms especially equipped for this experiment. Sufficient cally analyzed with a Student’s test at the level of p=0.05.
specimens (extracted human molars) were prepared in
advance for each series of tests according to the numbers Conclusion:
of participants. The teeth were embedded in acrylic resin, The main advantage of the “Battle of the Bond” was to
and flat dentin surfaces were produced by wet grinding record a large database extracted from tests made by gen-
on SiC paper # 800. To achieve the specimens, the practi- eral practitioners. In this study, more than one hundred
tioners used Teflon split molds. After the application of tests were performed with iBOND Self Etch. Recently, a
the adhesive, the molds were filled in 2 increments (light- publication grouping together all the clinical trials of
cured for 20 seconds each) with a composite resin. dentin bonding systems has shown a positive correlation
Only one composite material was used for all the trials between this data and the clinical behavior of the same
(Z 100, 3M ESPE). The light intensity emitted by the dentin bonding systems (Peumans et al., 2005).
available units was checked before using (a threshold of
Results
In total, 106 specimens of iBOND Self Etch were tested. The shear bond strength of iBOND Self Etch was
14.39 ± 4.5 MPa.
Initial shear bond strength to dentin in MPa in comparison to other tested adhesives*
[MPa] Three-step Two-step adhesive One-step adhesive
adhesive
A A, B A, B B, C B, C, D B, C, D D B, C B, C C, D A, B, C
16
14
12
10
8
15.0
14.6
14.6
14.1
13.9
13.6
13.4
14.2
14.1
13.4
14.4
6
4
2
0
Optibond FL
Scotch-
bond 1 XT
XP Bond
Optibond
Solo Plus
Admira Bond
Clearfil SE
Bond
AdheSE
Clearfil S3
Bond
Hybrid Bond
G-Bond
iBOND
Self Etch
*Results with the same superscripted letter are not statistically different from each other (p < 0.05).
The other adhesives were tested at least 100 times with the same method in at least five courses of the “Battle of the Bond”.
22
Gluma Comfort Bond
® ®
+ Desensitizer
Gluma® Comfort® Bond + Desensitizer
Gluma Comfort Bond + Desensitizer is a light cured, Composition:

single component, wet-bonding agent for use in com  Methacrylate
bination with adhesive restorations. With its pro  4-META
grammed re-wetting action, it compensates for minor  Polyacrylic acid
variations in the moisture content of the conditioned  Ethanol
dentine surface. With the added benefit of ethanol  Photoinitiators
as solvent, Gluma Comfort Bond + Desensitizer was  Glutaraldehyde
developed for bonding composite, compomer and
Polyglas resins to the tooth structure as well as Indications:
for bonding amalgams and indirect restorations.  Bonding of direct composite, Polyglas and com
The patented chemistry of Gluma Comfort Bond + pomer restorations
Desensitizer combines the excellent adhesive bonding  Bonding of indirect restorations (such as ceramic
with the desensitising action of Gluma Desensitizer. veneers, ceramic crowns, inlays and onlays) using
light-curing or dual-curing cements
 Bonding of fresh amalgam
 Sealing hypersensitive areas of teeth
Advantages:
 Priming, bonding and desensitising in only one bottle
 Simple application without prior mixing
 Suitable both for moist and dry bonding techniques
 Excellent adhesive strength
Clinical application Awards
15–30 s
3x
Received a 4.5 @ 92 % rating in Vol. 17, No. 8

1–2 s
15 s 20 s
IN VIVO STUDIES GLUMA COMFORT BOND + DESENSITIZER
2-year results with Gluma®

Comfort® Bond + Desensitizer
Clinical Evaluation of a New Microhybrid Composite Study (Venus)

Authors: Dunn, J. R., Munoz, C.A., University of Loma Linda/USA
Publication: report to Heraeus Kulzer, data on file
Abridged version
Objective evaluated by using modified USPHS evaluation criteria for

The purpose of this clinical trial was to evaluate the in vivo anatomic form, color match, marginal adaptation, retention,
performance of the combination of Gluma Comfort Bond + marginal discoloration, surface staining and secondary
Desensitizer/Venus for anterior restorations over a two-year caries.
period.
Conclusion
Materials und Methods In all categories all restorations were ranked Alpha or Beta.
A total of 53 restorations (classes III, IV, V, diastema None of the subjects exhibited postoperative sensitivity or
restorations, veneers) using Venus (Heraeus Kulzer) were exaggerated gingival response.
placed in the anterior teeth of 28 subjects. Gluma Comfort Based on the two-year findings of this study, the com
Bond + Desensitizer was used as the dental adhesive. bination Gluma Comfort Bond + Desensitizer/Venus is a
At two-year, 40 restorations were evaluated. They were very good choice for anterior restorations.
Results
Alpha/Bravo results after 2 years
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Anatomic Form Shade Match Marginal Retention Marginal Surface Secondary
Integrity Discoloration Staining Caries
 Alpha  Bravo
26
IN VIVO STUDIES GLUMA COMFORT BOND + DESENSITIZER
Desensitising effect of Gluma®

Clinical Evaluation of the Role of Glutardialdehyde in a One-Bottle
Adhesive
Authors: Dondi dall’Orologio, G., Lone, A., Finger, W. J.
Publication: Am J Dent 2004; 15: 330–334
Abridged version
Objective application of a 2-second cold air stimulus. The buccal

To evaluate clinically whether the addition of glutardial sensitive sites treated in A were generally small, in B larger
dehyde to the one-bottle enamel-dentin adhesive Gluma and in most cases extending into the proximal tooth area.
Comfort Bond (GCB) has a desensitising function, as The patients indicated their discomfort level according
insinuated by the brand name Gluma Comfort Bond + to the pain scale prior to and immediately after topical
Desensitizer (GCB+D). application of GCB and GCB+D, respectively, and then at
recalls after 1 week, 1 (A) or 3 (B) months, and 6 months.
Materials und Methods The data was statistically analyzed by Α2-tests (p<0.05).
Two pain studies following identical protocols were
conducted in Abu Dhabi (A) and Bologna (B). Each of Conclusion
the 60 and 59 patients selected, respectively, had two Glutardialdehyde was a suitably active and effective
sensitive cervical tooth sites, characterized by a score component in Gluma Comfort Bond + Desensitizer to
three or higher on a five-step pain scale: 1 (no), 2 (slight), prevent post-operative sensitivity when adequate dentin
3 (mild), 4 (severe). 5 (very severe) discomfort upon sealing with the adhesive was not obtained.
Results
In the A-study, GCB+D was significantly more effective than GCB after 1 week, 1 month, and 6 months, in the
B-study at all recall sessions.
Percentage success rate (scores 1 and 2) – Abu Dhabi Percentage success rate (scores 1 and 2) – Bologna
% %
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
postoperatively 1 week 6 months postoperatively 1 week 6 months
 Gluma Comfort Bond  Gluma Comfort Bond

 Gluma Comfort Bond + Desensitizer  Gluma Comfort Bond + Desensitizer
27
IN VITRO STUDIES GLUMA COMFORT BOND + DESENSITIZER
Shear bond strength

to dentine
Shear Bond Strengths of Gluma Bonding Systems to Dentin

Authors: Ritter, A. V., Bertoli, C. and Swift, E.F. Jr.
Publication: J Dent Res 2000; 79: 1852
Objective rinsed, and lightly dried. After adhesive application and

Gluma One Bond (GOB, Heraeus Kulzer) is a one-bottle curing, Charisma composite (Heraeus Kulzer) was applied
adhesive containing UDMA, HEMA, and 4-META in ace- in a #5 gelatin capsule and light-cured. Specimens were
tone. To reduce the potential for technique sensitivity, loaded in shear using an Instrom at 5 mm/min. Shear bond
the manufacturer has recently developed two adhesives strengths were calculated by dividing failure load by
containing the same resin monomers in ethanol. One of bonded surface area. ANOVA showed a significant differ
the new materials (Gluma Comfort Bond + Desensitizer, ence in means at p<0.01, so Tukey’s test was used for
Heraeus Kulzer, GCBD) contains glutaraldehyde, and one pairwise comparisons.
does not (Gluma Comfort Bond, GCB). The purpose of this
study was to evaluate the shear bond strength of the new Conclusion
ethanol-based adhesives versus GOB and a conventional The results indicate that Gluma Comfort Bond + Desen
three-step adhesive (Scotchbond Multi-Purpose, 3M Espe) sitizer provides bond strengths to dentin similar to the
as a control. control Scotchbond Multi-Purpose and higher than its
counterparts Gluma One Bond and Gluma Comfort Bond.
Materials und Methods
Forty bovine incisors were mounted in acrylic, polished to
600-grit, and randomly assigned to four groups (n=10).
Dentin was etched for 15 s using 37 % phosphoric acid,
Results
Mean values SBS (±SD, MPa) were: Gluma One Bond – 8.0 (4.4); Gluma Comfort Bond – 10.0 (4.4), Gluma
omfort Bond + Desensitizer – 14.0 (6.0); Scotchbond MP – 17.7 (6.4).
C
Shear bond strength in MPa
MPa
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Scotchbond MP Gluma One Bond Gluma Comfort Bond Gluma Comfort Bond +
Desensitizer
The references to the manufacturer’s name have been amended by Heraeus Kulzer.
28
IN VITRO STUDIES GLUMA COMFORT BOND + DESENSITIZER
Shear bond strength of Gluma®

Shear Bond Strength to Dentin of New One-Bottle Adhesives
Authors: Quagliatto, P.S. Jang, K.-T., Días-Siohl, J. A., Garcia-Godoy, F.
Publication: J Dent Res 80, Special Issue (AADR-Abstracts 2001,
Chicago)
Objective adhesives were handled according to the manufacturers’

To evaluate the shear bond strength to dentin of new one instructions. Immediately after bonding, the specimens
bottle enamel-dentin adhesives. were stored in water for 48 hrs and then thermocycled
(500x, 5–55 °C). Specimens were sheared at a crosshead
Materials und Methods speed of 1 mm/min in an Instron/MTS machine. The results
A total of 60 healthy human premolars were selected. were analyzed with an ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls
Flat facial surfaces were made with a series of SiC paper (SNK) test.
into the superficial-to-middle dentin. The following groups
were established (12 teeth per group): (1) Single Bond Comment of Heraeus Kulzer
(3M ESPE); (2) PQ1 (PQ); (3) Prime & Bond NT (Dentsply); Gluma Comfort Bond + Desensitizer showed very good
(4) Gluma Comfort Bond (Heraeus Kulzer); (5) Gluma results in shear bond strength.
Comfort Bond + Desensitizer (Heraeus Kulzer). For all groups
P60 resin-based composite (3M Espe) was used. All
Results
In MPa: Single Bond: 24.9 ± 5.1; PQ1: 24.6 ± 4.3; Prime & Bond NT: 19.8 ± 4.7; Gluma Comfort Bond: 18.0
± 2.5; Gluma Comfort Bond + Desensitizer: 23.0 ± 3.6. ANOVA showed a statistically significant difference
(p<0.05) among the groups. SNK test showed that groups 1 vs 4, 1 vs 3, 2 vs 4, 2 vs 3 and 5 vs 3 were statisti-
cally significantly different (p<0.05).
Shear bond strength in MPa
MPa
30
25
20
15
0
Gluma Comfort Bond Single Bond PQ1 Prime & Bond NT Gluma Comfort Bond +
Desensitizer
29
30
Gluma Solid Bond
®
Gluma® Solid Bond
Gluma Solid Bond is a bonding agent system for the Composition:

adhesive filling therapy consisting of Gluma Solid GLUMA Solid Bond P:
Bond P and Gluma Solid Bond S. Gluma Solid Bond  Ethanol
P is a dentine-primer, whereas Gluma Solid Bond S  (2-hydroxyethyl-)methacrylate
is a X-ray opaque sealer yielding fluoride ions. Gluma  Maleic acid
Desensitizer can be applied after etching and before  TEGDMA
applying Gluma Solid Bond P to prevent unwanted
hypersensitivities. GLUMA Solid Bond S:
 Bisphenol A – diglycidildimethacrylate
 TEGDMA
Indications:
 Bonding of all direct and indirect restorations
 Improvement of adhesion of fissure sealers to
enamel and dentine
 Sealing exposed tooth necks
Advantages:
 25 % filler loading
 X-ray opaque for significantly simplified
X-ray diagnostics
 Excellent adhesive strength
Solid Bond (former name for Gluma Solid Bond)

received a 4.5 @ 88 % rating in Vol. 15, No. 8
15–30 s
15 s 30 s
40 s
IN VIVO STUDIES GLUMA SOLID BOND
Clinical evaluation of Gluma®

Solid Bond for 18 months
Clinical Evaluation of an All-In-One Self-Etching Dental Adhesive*

Authors: Ritter, A.V., Heymann, H., Pereira, P., Sturdevant,
J. Swift, E. Jr., Wilder, A.
Publication: J Dent Res 84 (Spec Iss A): Abstract #2568, 2005
Abridged version
Objective ment. No retentive grooves or bevels were used. Durafill VS

The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to (Heraeus Kulzer) was used as the restorative material.
evaluate the clinical performance of an all-in-one self- Adhesives and composite were applied according to
etching dental adhesive (iBond GI, Heraeus Kulzer) versus manufacturer’s directions and light-cured using a Translux
that of a multi-step total-etch dental adhesive (Gluma So- Energy unit (Heraeus Kulzer). The restorations were evalu
lid Bond, Heraeus Kulzer) when applied to non-carious ated at baseline and at 18 months for retention, secondary
Class V lesions. caries, marginal adaptation/integrity, and marginal discolor
ation using modified USPHS criteria for clinical evaluation
Materials und Methods of dental restorations. Data were analyzed using Fisher
Lesions were characterized preoperatively relative to height, Exact’s Test (p=0.05) for significant differences between
width, depth, percent of margin in enamel, internal angle, treatments.
and degree of sclerosis. Fifty-five non-carious Class V
lesions were randomly assigned to two treatment groups Comment of Heraeus Kulzer:
according to the adhesive used: Gluma Solid Bond (n=27) The multi-step total-etch dental adhesive Gluma Solid
or iBond GI (n=28). Tooth preparation consisted of roughe- Bond presented in all categories very good results after
ning the exposed walls of the lesion with a diamond instru- 18 months.
* see study also on page 13
Results
Overall lesion characteristics were similar, and all baseline scores were Alpha for all restorations in both treatment
groups. The 18-month recall rate was 95 %. No retention failures or secondary caries were observed, and all
restorations were clinically acceptable. No significant differences were detected between Gluma Solid Bond and
iBond GI regarding marginal adaptation/integrity (p = 0.09).
Results of Gluma Solid Bond after 18 months

 Alpha  Beta
Scores in %
100
80
60
40
20
0
Retention Color Marginal Anatomic Cavosurface Margin Secondary Postoperative Surface Fracture
Match Adaption Form Discoloration Caries Sensitivity Texture
34
IN VITRO STUDIES GLUMA SOLID BOND
Bond strength of Gluma®

Solid Bond on dentine
Bond Strength of Single- and Multi-Component Bonding Agents in Dry

and Moist Bonding Trials in vitro
Authors: B. Haller, A. Fritzenschaft
Publication: Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 54 (1999): 225–230
Abridged version
Objective bonding protocol with careful drying of the dentin, and

The effect of moist bonding on the bond strength and another ten according to the moist bonding protocol, where
marginal adaptation of 8 single- and multi-component excessive water was removed with a cotton pellet. Bond
bonding systems was tested in a push-out test. strength was assessed in a push-out test, and the marginal
adaptation of the composite was determined by SEM using
Materials und Methods acrylic replicas of the push-out specimens.
The products tested were one multi-component system with
a self-etching primer (Condiprimer, A.R.T. Bond, Catène), Conclusion
three multi-component systems with separate acid-etching According to these results moist bonding can be recom-
(EBS EF, 3M Espe; OptiBond FL, Kerr; Gluma Solid Bond, mended for all single-component and multi-component
Heraeus Kulzer) three primer/adhesive systems with bonding agents studied, except for A.R.T. bond.
phosphoric acid etching (Prime & Bond 2.1 Dentsply;
Scotchbond 1, 3M Espe; Syntac Single Component, Ivoclar Comment of Heraeus Kulzer:
Vivadent), and one experimental self-etching primer/ad Gluma Solid Bond showed the best marginal adaptation
hesive (Condiprimer-adhesive, Degudent). For each bonding (100 % gap-free) and very good bond strength.
agent ten specimens were processed according to the dry
Results
After 24 hours of immersion in 0.9 % NaCl solution the multi-component bonding agents exhibited significantly
higher bond strengths both on dry and on moist dentin (22.7–28.9 MPa, or respectively, 22.1 – 29.6 MPa) than
the primer/adhesives (5.3 – 13.9 MPa, or respectively, 11.0 – 15.7 MPa). SEM analysis showed that some of the
multi-component products are associated with a superior marginal adaptation as compared to some of the single-
component systems.
Bond strength Marginal adaption

MPa Gap-free margins in %
30 120
20 80
10 40
0 0
Self- A.R.T. Opti- EBS Prime & Syntac Scotch- Gluma Self- A.R.T. Opti- EBS Prime & Syntac Scotch- Gluma
etching Bond Bond EF Bond Single bond 1 Solid etching Bond Bond EF Bond Single bond 1 Solid
Primer/ FL 2.1 Compo- Bond Primer/ FL 2.1 Compo- Bond
adhesive nent adhesive nent
 Dry bonding [MPa]  Gap-free margin with dry bonding [%]
 Moist bonding [MPa]  Gap-free margin with moist bonding [%]
35
Shear bond strength

to enamel
Moist Bonding: Effect on Composite Bond Strength to Enamel
Authors: Moll, K., Gärtner, T., Haller, B.
Publication: J Dent Res 1998, 77: Special Issue B 1998
[Abstract 1254]
Abridged version
Objective system 20 specimens were prepared. The enamel was

Moist bonding is recommended for dentin adhesives in either carefully dried with compressed air (dry: n=10), or
order to prevent the collapse of the demineralized collagen. blot dried with a cotton pellet (moist: n=10). Shear bond
The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the strength (SBS) was determined after 24h (0.9 % NaCl,
effect of moist bonding on the shear bond strength of 37°C) in a universal testing machine (Zwicki 1120) at a
composite to enamel. crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min.
Materials und Methods Conclusion

Enamel of extracted molars (n=160) was ground flat, SBS of composite to enamel seems not to be affected by
etched with phosphoric acid and treated with the bonding moist bonding. However, considerable differences were
agents according to the manufacturers’ instruction. Six rest found between the bonding systems tested. Cavity tests
orative systems were tested: OPTI OptiBond FL/Herculite and clinical studies are necessary to evaluate the effect
(Kerr), SOLID Gluma Solid Bond/Charisma F (Heraeus Kul- of these differences on marginal adaptation and retention.
zer), E&P 3.0 Etch&Prime 3.0/Degufill Mineral (Degudent),
P&B 2.1 Prime&Bond 2.1/Spectrum TPH (Dentsply), SYN Comment of Heraeus Kulzer:
SC Syntac Single Component/Tetric (Ivoclar Vivadent), SB1 Gluma Solid Bond showed one of the best shear bond
Scotchbond 1/Z100 (3M Espe). OPTI and SOLID were strength results with and without primer application. Dry
tested without (–) and with (+) primer application. For each bonding showed better results for Gluma Solid Bond.
Results
Results of Gluma Solid Bond after 18 months
Mean shear bond strength in MPa:
40
30
20
10
0
Solid – Solid + Opti – Opti + E&P 3.0 P&B 2.1 Syn SC SB 1
 dry  moist + with primer application

– without primer application
36
Microtensile bond strength

of Gluma® Solid Bond
Effect of Desensitizer on Microtensile Bond Strength to Dentin
Authors: Geraldeli, S., Castilhos, N., Mandelli, A., Fulani, J. C. G.,
Perdigão, J.
Publication: J Dent Res 79: Special Issue, Book of Abstracts 78th
General Session of the IADR, Washington 2000
Abridged version
Objective Mechanical testing was performed in a Universal Testing

The purpose of this in-vitro study was to evaluate the effect Machine with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Mean results
of Gluma Desensitizer on the dentin µ-tensile bond were subjected to one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc
strengths (µTBS). test. Student’s t-test was used to compare mean results
for each adhesive (control vs. GD).
The occlusal third of 16 extracted human molars was Conclusion
removed to expose a flat dentin surface. Specimens were Within the limitations of this in-vitro project, the use of
randomly assigned to four dentin adhesives: OptiBond Gluma Desensitizer, an aqueous solution of 35 % HEMA
SOLO (Kerr); Prime&Bond 2.1 (Dentsply); Single Bond and 5 % glutaraldehyde, may increase µTBS when used
(3M Espe); and Gluma Solid Bond (Heraeus Kulzer). prior to the application of some simplified dentin
After acid-etching, half of the specimens were treated adhesives.
with Gluma Desensitizer (GD). Crowns were built-up with
a hybrid composite from the same manufacturer of Comment of Heraeus Kulzer:
the adhesive. After storage in saline at 37 °C for 24 h, GLUMA Solid Bond showed the best results in the control
specimens were prepared for µtensile bond testing group.
according to Shono et al., J. Dent Res 78: 699, 705.
Results
The variable “adhesive system” did not result in any Microtensile bond strength in MPa
significant statistical difference between pairs of
MPa  Control  With GD
mean values for the control and for the GD sub-groups.
16
For each adhesive system, GD resulted in statistically
higher µTBS than the control group, except for GLUMA 14
Solid Bond.
12
Gluma OptiBond SOLO Prime&Bond Single Bond

Solid Bond 2.1 10
8
Control 10.7 ± 8.0 7.5 ± 6.2 7.1 ± 4.4 7.8 ± 5.8
6
With GD 12.1 ± 8.2 15.1 ± 10.6 11.5 ± 7.8 11.6 ± 9.8
4
0
Gluma OptiBond Prime&Bond Single Bond
Solid Bond SOLO 2.1
37
38
Gluma ®
Desensitizer
Gluma® Desensitizer
GLUMA Desensitizer has been in the market for Composition:

over 10 years and has been used in over 45 million  ( -hydroxyethyl-)methacrylate
restorations worldwide to reduce hypersensitivity.  Glutardialdehyde
GLUMA Desensitizer penetrates up to 200µm into the  Purified water
exposed dentine tubuli where it forms multiple layers
of protein septa thereby preventing intratubular Indications:
movement following osmotic changes and preventing  Reduction of sensitivity of exposed cervical areas
hypersensibilities. which do not require restoration
 Reduction or prevention of postoperative sensitivity
following preparation of teeth for direct or indirect
restorations
Advantages:
 Highly effective yet easily handled
 No mixing, at a reaction time of only 30–60 secs.,
no light-curing required
 Initial efficacy
 Immediate pain reduction
 More effective than pure fluoridation
 Intradentinal effect, no surface film
 Clinically proven to be effective for at least
12 months
 Also used to good effect in combination with
bonding agents
Hypersensitivity Crown preparation Inlay
Received a 4.5 @ 91% rating in Vol. 18, No. 10

Received a 4.0 @ 88 % rating in Vol. 7, No. 1
30 s 30 s 30 s
IN VIVO STUDIES GLUMA DESENSITIZER
Desensitising effect of
Gluma® Desensitizer on prepared teeth
Evaluation of the Desensitizing Effect of Gluma Dentin Bond* on

Teeth Prepared for Complete-Coverage Restorations
Authors: Felton, D.A., Bergenholtz, G., Kanoy, B.
Publication: Int J Prosthodont 1991; 4:292–298
Abridged version
Objective Conclusion
The clinical trial assessed the ability of GLUMA Dentin Within the experimental limitations of this investigation,
Bond* (= GLUMA Desensitizer) to inhibit dentinal sensitivi- the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. Compared to
ty in teeth prepared to receive complete cast restorations. sterile water, GLUMA Dentin Bond* provided a significant
reduction in dentin sensitivity when placed on exposed
Materials und Methods dentin of complete veneer crown preparations. 2. The
20 patients provided 76 teeth for the study. Following tooth presence of a dentinal smear layer had no appreciable
preparation, dentinal surfaces were coated with either effect on dentin sensitivity responses for either GLUMA
sterile water (control) or two 30-second applications of treatment group.
GLUMA Dentin Bond* (test) on either intact or removed
smear layers. Patients were recalled after 14 days for a test
of sensitivity of the prepared dentin to compressed air,
osmotic stimulus (saturated CaCl2 solution), and tactile
stimulation via a scratch test under controlled loads.
* Gluma Dentin Bond was the former name of Gluma Desensitizer
Results
A siginificantly lower number of teeth responded to Response to air stimulus

the test stimuli for both Gluma groups when compared
Number of responses
to the controls (p<0.01). No difference was noted
25
between teeth with smear layers intact or removed
prior to treatment with Gluma Dentin Bond*. 20
15
10
0
1* 2* 3*
Degree of response
1*: No sensation to stimulation  Gluma Desensitizer / smear layer intact

2*: Mild to moderate sensation, but little discomfort (nonlingering)  Gluma Desensitizer / smear layer removed
3*: Severe sensation or discomfort (lingering)  Controls
42
The desensitising effect of Gluma®

Desensitizer on hypersensitive dentine
Desensitizing Effects of Gluma Primer and Gluma 2000 on
Hypersensitive Dentin
Authors: Dondi dall’Orologio, G., Malferrari, S.
Abridged version
The aim of this clinical trial was to investigate the effects Single topical treatments of hypersensitive erosion/abrasion
of topical applications of GLUMA 3 Primer* (= GLUMA lesions with GLUMA 3 Primer* and GLUMA 2000 condition
Desensitizer) or GLUMA 2000 conditioning solutions on ing solutions, respectively, eliminated or at least signific
hypersensitive erosion/abrasion lesions. antly reduced dentin sensitivity throughout the 6 month
observation time.
Thirty-four patients were included in the trial with at least
two teeth each presenting severe sensitivity. From a total
of 116 teeth, 40 were treated with GLUMA 3 Primer*
(Heraeus Kulzer), 42 with GLUMA 2000 Conditioner and
34 served as the control. Sensitivity was recorded as
response to tactile and cold air stimuli prior to treatment
as baseline, immediately after the topical application of
the agents, after 1 week, 1 month and 6 months.
* identical to Gluma Desensitizer
Results
Both GLUMA groups showed a highly significant reduction in sensitivity between baseline and postoperative pain
scores (p<0.05) and between the postoperative and the 1-week responses (p<0.05). The sensitivity scores were not
different between 1 week and 6 months. In the control group, no pain reduction was registered between baseline
and up to 1-month recall. After 6 months, however, the sensitivity was spontaneously slightly reduced. At the end of
the 6-month observation time, 29 GLUMA 3 Primer* and 31 GLUMA 2000 treated teeth no longer showed dentin
sensitivity.
Sensitivity score Baseline Post-treatment 1 week 1 month 6 months
GL GT CO GL GT CO GL GT CO GL GT CO GL GT CO
0 – – – 10 19 – 28 31 – 29 31 – 29 31 –
1 – – – 16 13 – 8 9 – 7 9 – 7 9 2
2 18 18 24 14 10 24 4 2 26 4 2 27 4 2 30
3 22 24 10 – – 10 – – 8 – – 7 – – 2
GL: GLUMA 3 Primer*

GT: GLUMA 2000 Conditioner
CO: Control Group
43
Efficiency of desensitising treatments

with Gluma® Desensitizer
Efficiency of Desensitising Treatments of Hypersensitive Dentine with
Gluma and Gluma 2000
Authors: Blunck, U., Roulet, J.-F.
Publication: internal report to Heraeus Kulzer, data on file
Abridged version
Objective The treatment as described under D was used as a control

The purpose of this clinical investigation was to evaluate since it was unethical to observe untreated hypersensitive
the effectiveness of four different treatments for teeth with dentine for one year. The sensitivity was recorded as a
severe sensitivity. response to tactile and cold air stimuli before treatment,
after the different topical applications, after one week, one
Materials und Methods month, six and twelve months.
30 patients who already suffered from hypersensitive
dentine for at least two months with unsuccessful treat- Conclusion
ments before that time were included in the study. 58 severe Even a single topical application of GLUMA Primer*
sensitive teeth were randomly assigned to four different without prior cleansing significantly reduced the severe
treatment groups. A: 60s application of GLUMA Primer* hypersensitivity of exposed cervical dentine and was as
(= GLUMA Desensitizer), B: 60s application of GLUMA effective as the more time consuming application of a
Primer* after using GLUMA Cleanser, C: 60s application of total dentine adhesive system.
GLUMA 2000 Conditioner, and D: application of the entire
GLUMA bonding system (Cleanser, Primer and Adhesive).
Results
All treatments showed a significant reduction of Efficiency of Gluma Primer*

hypersensitivity between baseline and directly after
application. No statistically significant difference Number of teeth
could be calculated by Chi-square-tests between the
60
four different groups up to the reevaluation after three
months. The recording of the sensitivity after 6 50
and 12 months showed significantly more severely
sensitive teeth in the group tested with GLUMA 2000 40
Conditioner (group C). After one year for the group A
30
(GLUMA Primer*) 39 out of 48 teeth (81%), for group
B (GLUMA Cleaner + GLUMA Primer*) 36 out of 44 20
(82%) and for group D (GLUMA Bording System) 37
out of 48 teeth (77%) were still recorded without 10
severe sensitivity but only 6 out of 49 teeth (11%)
0
in group C (GLUMA 2000 Conditioner). In this group
Baseline 15 min 1 week 1 month 6 months 12 months
the number of reapplications also was highest.
Level of pain:
 0–1 (0: no pain, 1: slight sensation)
 2– 3 (2: pain, nonlingering, 3: pain, lingering)
44
Clinical evaluation to
dentine hypersensitivity
Clinical Evaluation of Gluma 3 Primer to Dentine Hypersensitivity
Autoren: Inoue, M., Yoshikawa, K., Okamoto, A., Kota, K., Fujii, B.,
Iwaku, M.
Publication: Japanese Journal of Conservative Dentistry 1996;
39: 768–776
Abridged version
The objective of this study was to evaluate pain reduction in The authors confirmed that GLUMA 3 Primer* is an effec-
hypersensitive cervical regions immediately after applying tive and reliable topical desensitiser for treating dentine
GLUMA 3 Primer* (= GLUMA Desensitizer) and during the hypersensitivity. No side-effects were recorded in cases
following 8 weeks. where the site was kept completely dry with a rubber dam
or where it was kept relatively dry with cotton rolls.
This study was carried out at the conservative dentistry
departments of the Universities of Osaka and Niigata, using
the same protocol. A total of 82 teeth (60 patients) with
severe dentine hypersensitivity symptoms were involved in
this study. The pain causing stimulants were an air blast,
cold water or scratching with a dental probe. GLUMA 3
Primer* was applied for 60 seconds. The effectiveness was
evaluated after intervals of 15 minutes, 1, 4 and 8 weeks.
Results
15 minutes after topical application, the dentine hypersensitivity had already been reduced considerably or
e liminated in 79 % of the teeth. This high initial effectiveness remained unchanged throughout the ensuing
8 week observation period.
Pain reduction (stimulant air blast)
Pain reduction in %
100
80
60
40
20
0
15 min 1 week 4 weeks 8 weeks
45
Clinical effectiveness of Gluma® Desensitizer

on tooth cervical hypersensitivity
Clinical Effectiveness of Two Agents on the Treatment of Tooth Cervical
Hypersensitivity
Authors: Kakaboura, A., Rahiotis, CH., Thomaidis, S., Doukoudakis, S.
Abridged version
Objective stimuli. A verbal rating scale was used and scored as

To investigate the desensitising ability of a one-bottle agent follows: 0, no discomfort; 1, discomfort but no severe pain;
and a glutaraldehyde-based HEMA formulation on sensitive 2, severe pain during stimulation; 3, severe pain after
tooth cervical areas for a period up to 9 months. stimulation. The results were subjected to statistical
analysis by Kruskal-Wallis test (a=0.05).
The sample consisted of 40 patients with cervical hyper- Conclusion
sensitivity. Three sensitive teeth per patient were treated; Even though the one-bottle agent tested may offer a short-
one received One-Step (one-bottle bonding agent, Bisco), term, adequate reduction of hypersensitivity, a significant
the other GLUMA Desensitizer (glutaraldehyde-based agent, reversal of the sensitivity may occur long-term, particularly
Heraeus Kulzer) and the third distilled water (control group). for air-blast stimulation. The glutaraldehyde-based agent
The hypersensitivity level was determined before, immedi was proven more efficient in treating cervical sensitivity up
ately after the desensitising session, at 8 weeks, and 9 to the 9-month follow-up.
months post-treatment. Measurements of sensitivity were
determined by the patient’s response to tactile and air-blast
Results
Both treatment procedures resulted in reduction of Mean hypersensitivity scores for air-blast stimulus
hypersensitivity to both stimuli, for up to 9 months.
No significant differences were recorded between
1,8
One-Step and GLUMA Desensitizer at immediate and
8-week examinations, whereas GLUMA Desensitizer 1,6
produced lower hypersensitivity than One-Step at
the 9-month assessment. In general, a lower level 1,4
of reduction was found for the 9-month interval
1,2
compared to the 8-week hypersensitivity score for
both agents tested. A placebo effect was effected 1
with water treatment, ranging from 4.7 to 27.5 %
reduction of hypersensitivity. 0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0
 Baseline  Immediate  8-week  9-month
Distilled Water One-Step Gluma Desensitizer
46
Effectiveness after
periodontal therapy
Effectiveness of Desensitizing Agents for Dentin Hypersensitivity after
Periodontal Therapy
Authors: Tenorio, S. B., Santos, R. L., Gusmão, E. S.
Publication: J Dent Res (Spec Iss B) 2002, 48: 54
Abridged version
Objective the patients returned for measuring the degree of sensitivity

The effectiveness of two desensitising agents were analyzed again and re-applying the desensitizing agents. This was
on 48 teeth of male and female patients who had presented continued for a period of four weeks and after this period
with hypersensitive dentin after periodontal therapy. a new evaluation was carried out after 60 days.
Materials und Methods Conclusion

Teeth were selected and divided into two groups of twenty- These data indicate that desensitising agents were efficient
four according to the substance applied: group I (Oxagel, to decrease hypersensitive dentin after periodontal therapy.
Art Dent) and group II (GLUMA Desensitizer, Heraeus
Kulzer). For the first section, all patients were instructed in Comment of Heraeus Kulzer:
oral hygiene, prophylaxis and their sensibility was evaluated GLUMA Desensitizer effectively reduces hypersensitivity of
using criteria proposed by Uchida et al. (J. Periodontol., dentine after periodental therapy.
51: 10, p. 578–81, 1980). For evaluation tactile stimulus
(pathfinder), air jet and thermic stimulus (cold) were
employed. Solutions were applied and after seven days
Results
Results of the present study corroborate that both groups underwent a medium percentual decrease exceeding
81% between initial and final analysis (two months).
Reduction in sensitivity
%
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Baseline 2 months
47
IN VITRO STUDIES GLUMA DESENSITIZER
Influence of retention
of cemented castings
Crown Retention with use of a 5 % Glutaraldehyde Sealer on Prepared

Dentin
Authors: Johnson, G. H., Lepe, L., Bales, D. J.
Publication: J Prosthet Dent 1998; 79: 671–6
Abridged version
Objective Ketac Cem glass ionomer (3M ESPE) or Resinomer material

This study determined whether a non-resin sealer applied (Bisco) in combination with One Step adhesive (Bisco).
to prepared dentin affected the retention of cemented Castings were thermocycled, then removed along the path
castings. of insertion with an Instron testing machine. A two-factor
analysis of variance was used with α=0.05 and n=9–10.
Extracted molars were prepared with a flat occlusal, Conclusion
20-degree taper and 4 mm axial length. The axial surface The use of the glutaraldehyde-based system as a desensi
area of each preparation was determined and samples tizing treatment for prepared teeth had no effect on crown
were distributed to achieve equivalent groups. Gluma retention for any of the three cements evaluated and the
Desensitizer (Heraeus Kulzer) sealer was used to seal the modified resin cement produced the highest mean dis
dentin before provisionalization and again before crown lodgement stress that exceeded the strength of the tooth.
cementation. An Olympia alloy casting was produced for
each preparation and cemented with a seating force of
20 KG with either Mizzy’s zinc phosphate (Mizzy Inc.),
Results
Mean dislodgement stresses for unsealed and sealed Crown retention with and without Gluma Desensitizer
conditions were 6.3 and 6.4 MPa for zinc phosphate, MPa
9.1 and 10.1 MPa for glass ionomer, and 12.1 and
14
12.6 MPa for the resin cement. The means for the
three cements were statistically different (p<0.001). 12
The effect of sealer (p=0.369) and cross product
interactions (p=0.820) were not significant. 10
0
Zinc phosphate Glass ionomer Resin cement
cement cement
 without Gluma Desensitizer  with Gluma Desensitizer
48
IN VITRO STUDIES GLUMA DESENSITIZER
Influence of Gluma®
Desensitizer on bond strength
Influence of Desensitizers on Bond Strength of 2 Adhesive Systems at
Dentin
Authors: Bedran de Casgtro, A.K.B.; Aramal, C.M.; Shinohara, M.S.;
Ambrosano, G.M.B.; Pimenta, L.A.F.
Publication: J Dent Res 2002 ; 81: B–176
Abridged version
Objective and cured. The specimens were stored under humidity

The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of for 7 days at 37 °C. The SBS tests were performed in an
desensitizer agent treatment on the bond strength of two EMIC universal test machine with a crosshead speed at
adhesive systems. 0.5 mm/min. The mean values were analyzed with two-way
ANOVA and Tukes Test (p<0.05) and the differences were
Materials und Methods expressed by different letters (p<0.05).
One hundred and fifty bovine incisors were mounted,
their dentin polished, and divided into 10 groups (n=15): Conclusion
G1 – Singlebond/3M (SB); G2 – Excite/Vivadent (EX); No significant difference was observed between the ad
G3 – Oxagel (OXA)+ SB; G4 – OXA + EX; G5 – GLUMA hesive, the use of GLUMA Desensitizer presented the high-
Desensitizer/Heraeus Kulzer (GLU) + SB; G6 – GLU + EX; er values and OXA presented the lower values. It could be
G7 – Desensibilizer/FGM (DES) + SB; G8 – DES + EX; concluded that the use of desensitizer agents does not
G9 – Experimental/FGM (EXP) + SB; G10 – EXP + EX. In interfere with the bond strength of two adhesives.
all groups, the dentin was etched with 37 % phosphoric
acid. Soon after, the desensitiser, respectively the adhesive, Comment of Heraeus Kulzer:
was applied according to manufacturers’ instructions. Then The adhesives showed the highest bond strength in com-
a resin (Z100, 3M ESPE) was inserted in a teflon matrix bination with GLUMA Desensitizer.
Results
The values in MPa (SD) were: G1 = 13.07 (5.82); G2 = 13.00 (4.83); G3 = 10.21 (5.01); G4 = 10.57 (3.94);
G5 = 15.77 (4.09): G6 = 13.55 (4.19); G 7 = 11.17 (4.17); G 8 = 13.31 (3.11); G 9 = 12.18 (5.22);
G10 = 12.57 (4.43).
Bond strength in MPa

MPa
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Control Oxagel Desensibilizer Experimental Gluma Desensitizer
 Singlebond  Excite
49
References Notes
Brännström, M.: Sensitivity of dentine. Oral Surg 1966; All graphs and page titles were provided by Heraeus
21: 517–526. Kulzer.
Brännström, M., Astrom, A.: The hydrodynamics of the The studies were chosen with the objective of resuming
dentine, its possible relationship to dentinal pain. Int Dent bond strength results and desensitising effects of the
J 1972; 22: 219–227. Heraeus Kulzer products iBond Self Etch, GLUMA Comfort
Bond + Desensitizer, GLUMA Solid Bond and GLUMA
Duroux, P., Cimasoni, G.: Les hypersensibilités dentinaires Desensitizer.
et leur traitement. Rev Mens Suisse Odontostomatol 1991;
101: 1261–1272. The studies on pages 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 42, and 43 were
translated into English.
Hellwig, E., Klimek, J., Attin, Th.: Einführung in die Zahn-
heilkunde, Urban & Fischer, 3. Auflage 2003.
Jacobsen, P. L., Bruce, G.: Clinical Dentin Hypersensitivity:

Understanding the causes and prescribing a treatment.
J Contemp Dent Pract 2001; 2: No. 1.
Prati, C., Cervellati, F., Sanasi, V., Montebugnoli, L.: Treat-

ment of cervical dentin hypersensitivity with resin ad
hesives: 4-week evaluation. Am J Dent 2001; 14: 378–382.
Schüpbach, P., Lutz, F., Finger, W. J.: Closing of dentinal

tubules by Gluma desensitizer. Eur J Oral Sci 1997; 195:
414–421.
Walters, P. A.: Dentinal Hypersensitivity: A review. J Con-

temp Dent Pract 2005; 6: No. 2.
50
In compliance with the European guideline 93/42/EWG our medical devices are CE-marked according to the classifications.
66034689 06.08
Contact in Germany Contact in the United Kingdom Contact in Australia

Heraeus Kulzer GmbH Heraeus Kulzer Ltd. Heraeus Kulzer Australia Pty. Ltd.
Grüner Weg 11 Heraeus House, Albert Road Locked Bag 750
63450 Hanau Northbrook Street, Newbury Roseville NSW 2069
[email protected] Berkshire, RG14 1DL Phone +61 29.417-8411
www.heraeus-kulzer.com Phone +44 1635.30-500 Fax +61 29.417-5093
Fax +44 1635.30-606 [email protected]
[email protected] www.heraeus-kulzer.com
www.heraeus-kulzer.com

iBOND Adhesive Scientific GB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

iBOND Adhesive Scientific GB

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

iBOND Adhesive Scientific GB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heraeus Kulzer Adhesives

Preface 5 Gluma® Solid Bond 31

Dr. Marcus Hoffmann Dr. Janine Schweppe

Dentine hypersensitivity (DHS) is an extremely widespread Theories about sensitivity

Methods of treating hypersensitive areas of teeth Postoperative hypersensitivity

Conventional treatment Placing adhesive restorations may lead to postoperative

Description of the product

iBOND Self Etch is a light-curing self-etching one Composition:

Application of iBOND Self Etch

Shake Dispense Close immediately

Dip brush Apply 1x Agitate for 20 seconds

Air dry Glossy surface Light cure for 20 seconds

External Testing of iBOND Self Etch by 15 Study Groups Worldwide

Dr. Miller, Prof. van Meerbeek, Prof. Frankenberger, Prof. Finger,

Prof. Lee, Prof. Ernst,

Dr. Lu, Prof. Haller,

Prof. Thompson, Prof. Hannig,

Prof. Soderholm, Prof. Uno,

First clinical results with

 Clearfil SE Bond  iBOND Self Etch

Clinical results with iBOND® Self Etch

Assessment A after 3 months in %

Microtensile bond strength to dentine

μ-TBS trials on dentine

Objective: s­ torage in water for 24 hours at 37 ºC using a microtensile

Marginal integrity at the enamel

Objective: plastic resin replicas, which were sputtered with gold.

Perfect integrity at cervical dentine margins before and after TML in %

 before TML  after TML

Shear bond strength of iBond® Self Etch

Objective: ­ erculite XRV Unidose composite (Kerr) was bonded to

Shear bond strength (standard deviation) in MPa

Clearfil S3 Clearfil SE Adper iBOND

Microtensile bond strength of

Prime&Bond NT, 28.7±12.3/42.1±9.8 40

Marginal integrity of iBond® Self Etch

In vitro investigation on the marginal and internal adaptation of diffe-

Percentage of discontinuity in enamel and dentine

 iBOND Gluma inside  iBOND Self Etch

Microtensile bond strength on

Objective: grinder in order to obtain a standardized application layer.

Shear bond strength and marginal adaptation

Mean shear bond strength at the dentine in MPa

The shear bond strength at the dentine was 31.2 40

Mean of the maximum marginal gaps at the dentine in µm

“Battle of the Bond” –

Objective: 600 mW/cm2 was required). The bonded samples were

Description of the product

Gluma Comfort Bond + Desensitizer is a light cured, Composition:

Received a 4.5 @ 92 % rating in Vol. 17, No. 8

2-year results with Gluma®

Clinical Evaluation of a New Microhybrid Composite Study (Venus)

Objective evaluated by using modified USPHS evaluation criteria for

Alpha/Bravo results after 2 years

Desensitising effect of Gluma®

Objective application of a 2-second cold air stimulus. The buccal

 Gluma Comfort Bond  Gluma Comfort Bond

Shear bond strength

Shear Bond Strengths of Gluma Bonding Systems to Dentin

Objective: s torage in water for 24 hours at 37 ºC using a microtensile

Objective: erculite XRV Unidose composite (Kerr) was bonded to

Objective adhesives were handled according to the manufacturers’