{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03280730897009967, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012043189368770765, 'mean_word_length': 4.847087378640777, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Effectiveness of all-in-one adhesive systems tested by thermocycling following short and long-term water storage.

PURPOSE
To evaluate and compare the marginal integrity of in vitro Class V restorations made with all-in-one adhesive systems by thermocycling after different periods of water storage, to provide an analysis of static and quasi-dynamic deterioration in water.


MATERIALS AND METHODS
Standardized Class V cavities (17 groups, 8 specimens each) were prepared in extracted human caries-free anterior teeth. The cavities were filled using 14 all-in-one adhesive systems/composite resin combinations in addition to the multi-bottle adhesive systems Syntac and OptiBond FL (etch-and-rinse technique) and Clearfil SE Bond (self-etching) as controls. The samples were thermocycled after water storage for 21 days, after 1 year and again after 3 years (2000 cycles between 5 and 55 degrees C) and replicas were made before and after each thermocycling treatment (TC) for quantitative marginal analysis in the SEM.


RESULTS
In dentin, marginal adaptation showed no significant differences between all groups after the first TC. After one year of water storage and a second TC, the results for Prompt L-Pop (1999), Adper Prompt L-Pop/Tetric Ceram, and One-up Bond F Plus showed a statistically significant decrease of margin quality 1 (MQ1) score compared to the reference groups. When the all-in-one adhesives G-Bond, AQ-Bond, Hybrid Bond, and One-up Bond F Plus were used, the enamel margins of restorations showed lower percentages of "continuous margins" (p < 0.05) after 1 year of water storage and TC. Of the materials tested after 3 years of water storage and TC, only AQ Bond had a significantly lower MQ1 score.


CONCLUSION
While all materials exhibited deterioration in the MQ1 quality score, the rate of deterioration varied, and the results show that different materials have different deterioration rates after initial vs long-term water storage. The deterioration along margins in dentin was not as extensive as predicted from other studies; however, the results from the enamel margins show that one-bottle all-in-one adhesives seem to be significantly affected by water storage. The results of this study suggest that the all-in-one adhesive group members perform very differently from each other: thus, data need to be explored further at the level of each different adhesive product.