iBond Self Etch: The Ideal Bonding Agent?

ibond.gif
I would like to use just one bonding system for all my bonding needs. My assistants have great difficulty in learning the steps of different bonding systems and I want to make it easier for them. I also only want to have to keep inventory for one system and not have to worry about multiple bonding systems. I have been seeing advertisements for iBond [Heraeus] and I think this may be the answer. It is a one-bottle system. With one application iBond Self Etch, you get etching, priming, wetting and bonding. Sounds really good. What is your experience with this product? Does it have good bond strength?

According to Heraeus:

“iBOND Self Etch, is the 7th generation all-in-one bonding agent that etches, primes, bonds, and desensitizes in one single step. With numerous scientific studies and based on Heraeus Kulzerā€™s long term bonding expertise, iBOND Self Etch combines high bond strength, improved marginal sealing, and virtually no post-operative sensitivity with an easy, fast and more convenient application.

iBOND Self Etch is indicated for:

* Bonding of direct composite restorations.
* Bonding of indirect restorations in combination with light-curing luting cements.
* Sealing of hypersensitive areas of teeth.”

13 thoughts on “iBond Self Etch: The Ideal Bonding Agent?

  1. Do not use this stuff. It is not worth a thing. It will cause failures down the road. I used stuff like this have gone back to 4th generation bonding. One failure gives back any seconds saved in redue time. If it is in one bottle foreget it.

  2. I’m interested, but only if is at least as strong as previous generation, multi-bottle etch/primer/desensitizers and you can prove it. I have to agree with the previous poster regarding supposed time savings if failures occur. Re-doing one failed direct restoration takes at least 50 times as long as the time saved by using a single bottle product, and if the failure is a porcelain laminate that has to match other laminates or teeth, the cost of a failure with laboratory and chair time is absolutely tremendous. If it is a problem for an assistant to be capable of using three color coded bottles in proper succession with a multi-bottle product, a new assistant is what is needed.

    Let’s see some data from a University study in a REAL REFEREED journal, not a throw away rag, comparing it to other products. I’m NOT interested in company data, either.

  3. I used 4th generation materials (Allbond) for years (like many of us who have been around for a while) with good success, although with several failures per year. As Gary correctly stated, redoing a failed restoration is catastrophic, especially when the core buildup comes out with either the provisional or the impression. (These are the failures I’m talking about….) Clearfil Protect Bond has NEVER had a failure of this kind for me, which I consider very significant. Further, it has antibacterial properties which disinfect dentin, making deep restorations more predictable too. It is a two step, two bottle 6th generation bonding agent that has worked well for me since I started using it 4 years ago. Its predecessor, SE Bond is the one recommended by Christensen, but this one is better.

  4. My understanding is that most attempts to combine steps and simplify (either so-called 5th generation bonding agents like Prime and Bond, One Step, etc. or 7th generation one-bottle products like ibond) yield results that are not as good as multistep products like the 4th generation products (eg All
    Bond 2 ) or multistep self-etchers like Clearfil SE. The reasons are complicated (having to do with trying to combine hydrophobic and hydrophilic layers into one bottle, permeability and water-treeing etc) but I too feel that oversimplifying at the sacrifice of predictably good results is a mistake. I have been using Clearfil SE for more than 5 years and have found it to be superb in terms of reliable bonds and elimination of sensitivity. Go with a proven winner. This is the product to which all other self etchers get compared, and for good reason.

  5. I’ve tried this stuff and initially it may looked to have worked fine. But as time passed, I noticed microleakage so I ended up redoing the restoration for free using 4th generation bonding. I now use OptiBond FL and I love it. Sure total etch require more steps, but as Jeff Brucia says when he picks on a beautiful female with pretty hair from the audience “Do you use shampoo and conditioner?” And after everyone’s done laughing he asks “If I went into you shower, will I find an all-in-one like Pert shampoo/conditioner or separate shampoo and conditioner?” Obviously we know the answer. Separates steps or components just work better. Each component (etch, primer, bonding agent) have their own specific and special chemistry. All in Ones like I-bond I’d steer clear away from. I’ve recevied samples of ObtiBond’s All in one, but haven’t used it. I just don’t trust them. There is a lot of money to be made on these “simpler” bonding agents for those who can’t or are unwilling to handle multiple steps, and I presume OptiBond joined the bandwagon to cash in on the market for “if you make it easier, we will come. That’s too bad, because I firmly believe that 4th generation done right is the absolute best bonding available. And guess what, there is no sensitivity! We are all doctors who are highly educated and must perform our duties the best we can and I strongly believe with regard to bonding agents 4th generation bonding is still king! OptiBond, OptiBond FL, ScotchBond MP, All Bond, PermaQuick, etc, all perform superior to any 5th generation or later bonding. Sure even the 5th generation primer/bond although more convenient, have lower bond strengths than 4th gen bonding. I went from Ultradent’s PermaQuick system to ObtiBond’s FL. After many years, there is still no leakage on virtually all my composite and indirect bonded restorations. None. No brown lines or marginal discoloration.

  6. sir, i am Dr sharanappa kambale post graduate student of AMEs dental college, RAICHUR , KARNATAKA, INDIA, requesting you that i am doing theses on effect of single step adhesive on the marginal permiability of class-v resin composite. an invitro study, For this i need your help to send me a sample of iBond of 7th dentin bonding agent. so please help me to do my theses. i am very thankful for you.

  7. This material is/was very unstable. According to the manufacturer, the initial stability problem has been corrected. Unfortunately I do not know how one would identify the “new” formula. I would think a designation such as 2.0 would help us clinicians.

    Before you choose it, be sure to check the bond strength on unprepared enamel. Does it save time with 3 applications of 30 sec each?

    Isn’t it time we stop using this stupid “generation” classification? Trust me, the variations within a generation are enormous.

  8. I agree with those 4th generation bonding lovers.Etching gives the best bond strength.Only one thing to worry about,that is,when you need to do 2nd time filling for the same tooth after years,you need to cut away enough amount of tooth substance to redo the etch and bond.Because etch and bond really goes deep into the tooth matrix and if you don’t remove the old resin bonded matrix sufficiently your 2nd filling will fail.As in all in one bonds, you only need to remove small amount of old resin bonded tooth substance as it’s bond is superficial.But this is also the cause of high failure rate.

  9. I just want to ask the editors can I use this product with the new low shrinkage composite (silorane) or it is not compatible with the silorane chemistry based on ring opening polymerization?

  10. I have done independent bond strength studies on countless adhesives – including iBond. I prefer to use an adhesive that actually bonded to tooth structure! Any minor amount of time saved by using this class of material is more than lost when the patient returns to have the restoration replaced. Check Pashley & Tay’s research on “water-trees”.

Comments are closed.