Abstract
This study evaluated the microtensile bond strength and the interfacial morphology of newer adhesives. The occlusal surfaces of extracted teeth were ground flat for random allocation to four equal groups. Resin composite was bonded to each surface using either Clearfil SE Bond [SEB], Clearfil Protect Bond [PB], G‐Bond [GB], or an experimental adhesive, SSB‐200 [SSB]. After storage for 24 h in water at 37°C, they were sectioned into beams (cross‐sectional area 1 mm^2^) for microtensile bond strength testing (μTBS) at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The load at failure of each was recorded; the data were analyzed by one‐way ANOVA and Games Howell tests. The surfaces of the fractured specimens were observed using SEM. For the ultra‐morphology of the interface, the occlusal surfaces of four more teeth were prepared as before and a thin layer of flowable resin composite was bonded to each surface using one of the four adhesives.The mean μTBS ranged from 39.68 MPa (GB) to 64.97 MPa (SEB). There were no statistical differences between SEB and SSB, or between PB and GB (p > 0.05). The μTBS of SEB and SSB were significantly greater than that of PB and GB (p < 0.05). SEMs of the fractured surfaces revealed a mixed (cohesive/interfacial) failure. TEM examination highlighted differences in the hybrid layer; SEB had a thicker layer than the others. In conclusion, the newer all‐in‐one adhesives produced a thin hybrid layer but varied in their bond strengths. The 2‐step self‐etching adhesives do not necessarily produce higher bond strengths than that of the all‐in‐one systems. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 2007