The purpose of this study is to compare bond durability, in terms of fatigue bond strength, of a two-step HEMA-free universal adhesive and representative adhesives in each systematic category. The adhesives used in this study were OptiBond FL, Prime&Bond NT, Clearfil SE Bond 2, G2-Bond Universal, and Scotchbond Universal Plus Adhesive. Fatigue bond strength testing and scanning electron microscopy analysis of adhesively bonded enamel and dentin interfaces were performed. For the adhesives in etch-and-rinse mode, the enamel fatigue bond strength of the G2-Bond Universal adhesive was significantly higher than those of other adhesives, and the dentin fatigue bond strength of Prime&Bond NT was significantly lower than the others. For adhesives in self-etch mode, the enamel fatigue bond strengths of Clearfil SE Bond 2 and G2-Bond Universal were significantly higher than that of the Scotchbond Universal Plus Adhesive, and the dentin fatigue bond strength of G2-Bond Universal was significantly higher than Clearfil SE Bond 2 and the Scotchbond Universal Plus Adhesive. The two-step HEMA-free universal adhesive showed higher enamel and higher or equal dentin fatigue bond strength than other selected representative adhesive systems in etch-and-rinse mode and higher or equal enamel and higher dentin fatigue bond strength than adhesive systems in self-etch mode.
Keywords: dental bonding; dental debonding; dental restoration failure.