Syntac®

Scientific Documentation
 ®
Scientific Documentation Syntac Page 2 of 35

Table of contents
1. Introduction 3
1.1 Mechanics of dental adhesion 3

2. A brief history of adhesives 5

3. Classification of adhesives 5
3.1 Classification by generation 6
3.2 Classification by mechanism of adhesion / clinical steps 7

4. Ivoclar Vivadent Adhesives: Product Range 7

5. Syntac 8
5.1 Syntac mechanism 9
5.2 Selective-etch vs. total-etch 10
5.3 Trends in adhesive use 11

6. Technical Data 12

7. In vitro Investigations 13
7.1 Syntac and bond strength 13
7.2 Syntac and marginal integrity 15

8. Clinical Investigations 17
8.1 External controlled clinical studies 17
8.2 Internal controlled clinical studies 18
8.3 Literature review: Direct restorations with Syntac 21
8.4 Literature review: Indirect restorations with Syntac 24
8.5 Syntac and postoperative sensitivity 27
8.6 Summary 28

9. Biocompatibility 29
9.1 Introduction 29
9.2 Acute toxicity 29
9.3 Sensitisation and irritation 30
9.4 Conclusion 30

10. References 31
 ®
Scientific Documentation Syntac Page 3 of 35

1. Introduction
Adhesive dentistry has undergone remarkable and constant progress over recent decades,
and has undoubtedly co-revolutionised restorative dental practice.1
Dental adhesives have developed hand in hand with dental composites. Composite materials
became available in dentistry in the 1960s 2 and initially, they were mainly used in the
anterior region, where amalgam fillings were deemed unaesthetic. In the 1990s they began
to substitute amalgam as a universal filling material and composite restorations heralded a
new minimally invasive era in dentistry. The retentive aspect of amalgam fillings was no
longer necessary as the hole to be filled, had only to be as large as the demineralised tissue
to be removed. This new development in restorative dentistry was only possible due to the
simultaneous development of clinically reliable enamel/dentin adhesives.

1.1 Mechanics of dental adhesion

Two basic types of adhesion are possible:

Mechanical: via the penetration of adhesive resin into the tooth surface forming resin tags
Chemical: via chemical bonding to the inorganic component (hydroxyapatite) or organic
components (collagen) of the tooth structure

A combination of the above is usually responsible for bonding with modern adhesives.

1.1.1 Substrate
Adhesive systems must establish a bond to both the restoration and the dental hard tissue.
Composite restoratives consist of a hydrophobic matrix in which different filler particles are
embedded. Teeth are comprised of two very different substrates: enamel and dentin. Enamel
is essentially 96% hydroxyapatite, crystalline calcium phosphate, and 4% organic material
and water 3 whereas dentin consists of 70% hydroxyapatite, 20% collagen and 10% water.4
Enamel is thus an essentially dry substrate, whilst dentin is moist. Adhesives therefore need
to possess both hydrophobic and hydrophilic properties in order to establish a bond to both
substrates.

1.1.2 Smear layer

The smear layer refers to a layer of dental “debris” about 1 micron thick lying over the
prepared sections of tooth after instrumentation. It may have a protective function as it lowers
dentin permeability; however as it partly penetrates the dentin tubuli it can pose a challenge
to effective bonding.1 With early composite materials, it was observed that bonding agents
that removed the smear layer achieved better retention rates in clinical trials than those that
merely modified it.5,6 Removal of the smear layer appeared to be a prerequisite for adhesion
to dentin, and remains a largely accepted concept. Studies found that if the smear layer was
left in place, only about 5 MPa of bond could be achieved prior to cohesive fracture within the
smear layer.7,8
This led to the establishment of the group of bonding materials referred to as “total-etch” and
later on “etch-and-rinse” adhesives.
 ®
Scientific Documentation Syntac Page 4 of 35

Etching Enamel: Buonocore (1955) was the first to demonstrate the acid etch technique on
enamel.9 It increases the surface area, by leaving an irregular white etch pattern (Fig. 1). The
enamel prisms of enamel are cut either transversely or vertically during preparation and a
micro-retention pattern forms during etching because the central and peripheral parts of the
prisms feature different degrees of acid-solubility.10 A resin-based fluid, aided by capillary
action is then able to flow into the micro-porosities created. Monomers polymerise and
become interlocked with the enamel as resin tags. A stronger acid or longer exposure to acid
is required to obtain an optimal retentive pattern on enamel than is needed to expose
dentinal collagen in dentin bonding.
Etching Dentin: Etching dentin enlarges the tubular openings, removes or dissolves the
smear layer and demineralises surface dentin (Fig. 2). Demineralisation of peri- and inter-
tubular dentin results in a cup shaped expansion of the dentin tubules to a depth of
approximately 10 µm,11 creating porous zones with exposed collagen fibrils. This is
fundamental to achieving an effective bond.12 Initially etching dentin was problematic as the
first adhesive materials were hydrophobic. They worked sufficiently on enamel, but were
unable to penetrate and bond to dentin successfully. Modern hydrophilic resins however
penetrate moist etched dentin surfaces and form a hybrid layer whereby resin tags extending
into the tubuli form a micro-mechanical bond. The hybrid layer seals the exposed dentin and
is linked covalently to the composite restoration during polymerisation of the first increment.

Fig.1: Etched enamel: Left side shows unetched Fig. 2: Etched dentin: Dentinal surface showing
enamel with smear layer intact. Right side shows open tubuli after conditioning with the phosphoric
etch pattern (SEM Dr. P Gabriel, University of acid Total-Etch. (SEM Dr. P Gabriel, University of
Leipzig) Leipzig)

Hybridised dentin is a mixture of adhesive polymers and dental hard tissues, differing from
the original tooth structure at a molecular-level. The fundamental principle therefore of
adhesion to tooth substrates is based on an exchange process by which inorganic tooth
material is exchanged for synthetic resin.13

1.1.3 The “Total-Etch” or “Etch-and-Rinse” Technique

The “total-etch” term refers to the procedure whereby both enamel and dentin are etched
before bonding. Total-etch adhesives involve an initial etching step with phosphoric acid
(H3PO4) which removes the smear layer and conditions the preparation. The total-etch
technique is also often referred to synonymously as the “etch-and-rinse” technique. The
phosphoric acid is rinsed off together with the smear layer and the exposed dental tissue is
carefully dried. Enamel is usually etched for longer than dentin. The “how wet is wet?”
discussion refers to the necessity of not over-drying the dentin after etching and rinsing.
Dentin should remain moist and slightly glossy in appearance, such that the collagen fibrils
do not collapse (like cooked spaghetti) as this would make the surface less permeable to
hydrophilic monomers in the adhesive and create a weak interface, potentially leading to a
poor bond and postoperative sensitivity.
 ®
Scientific Documentation Syntac Page 5 of 35

For this reason, plus the multi-step nature of the technique, total-etch adhesives are often
referred to as technique-sensitive.14 They are however very well established and highly
clinically successful.15, 16

1.1.4 Selective-Etch Technique

This refers to the conventional etching technique whereby only the enamel edges of a
preparation are etched with phosphoric acid and then rinsed. The dentin is then conditioned
using an acidic primer step or an all-in-one self-etching adhesive. The smear layer is
modified but not removed as surfaces are not rinsed after the primer application. This
method (now less common than the total-etch technique) can also be seen as an etch-and-
rinse method for enamel only.

1.1.5 Self-Etch Technique

Self-etch adhesives are intended for use without a separate etching step. Self-etch systems
contain acidic monomers that prime/etch the enamel and dentin. In contrast to total-etch
systems there is less danger of excessive demineralisation of the dentin because self-etch
systems only demineralise dentin as far as the primer penetrates - thus all demineralised
areas are immediately filled with monomer. The potentially technique-sensitive step of drying
the dentin to just the right degree after etching is also not required thus the danger of
collagen-fibre collapse can be excluded. Each of these factors should reduce the risk of
postoperative complaints. It should be noted that some dentists choose to acid-etch the
enamel selectively prior to using self-etch adhesives.

2. A brief history of adhesives

In order to understand the current situation with adhesive dentistry it is important to look to
the past and how and why the various generations of adhesives developed. The concept of
bonding to enamel and dentin was first considered over 50 years ago by Buonocore.9
Extrapolating from industrial bonding techniques, he postulated that acids could be used as a
surface treatment before the application of resins, and found that etching enamel with
phosphoric acid increased the duration of adhesion under water. In 1963 he demonstrated
further insight in discussing the differences of bonding to enamel vs. dentin.17 In the late
1960s, he suggested it was the formation of resin tags in the micro-porosities of etched
enamel that were principally responsible for adhesion; with adhesion to dentin proving more
elusive due to its composition, water content and the smear layer.
The first dental adhesives therefore only bonded resins to enamel, with little or no adhesion
to dentin. Adhesives then evolved step by step with changes in chemistry, application,
mechanism, technique and effectiveness – an evolution that accompanied the development
of increasingly aesthetic dental materials, notably composite resins and ceramics.

3. Classification of adhesives
Classifying adhesives into neat categories is nigh on impossible. Over the years adhesives
have been classified variably according to generation, method of etching, the number of
bottles involved or the number of individual steps necessary for the entire bonding
procedure. In addition to this, authors/dentists often define generations differently, they may
or may not include etching in calculating the number of bottles or steps involved and some
authors allocate specific adhesives to different groups e.g. the classification of a multi-step
adhesive with a separate primer (traditionally viewed as an etch-and-rinse adhesive) as a
self-etch adhesive. Comparative analysis is undoubtedly hindered by these not
inconsiderable and inconsistent overlaps in attempts at classification and differences in
interpretation. The following paragraphs and Table 1 attempt to clarify the situation.
 ®
Scientific Documentation Syntac Page 6 of 35

3.1 Classification by generation

Dental adhesives can to a degree be categorised chronologically according to generation - a
historical system of identification commonly used by adhesive manufacturers. The generation
simply refers to when and in what order this type of adhesive was developed by the dental
industry, ranging from 1st generation in the 1960s to modern 7th generation adhesives.
1st and 2nd generation bonding agents are no longer used, due mainly to failed attempts to
bond with a loosely bound smear layer. They achieved poor bond strengths of 2-8 MPa 18
and failed to prevent marginal gaps.19 Manufacturers currently produce so-called 7th
generation products, however 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th generation adhesives remain popular and
offer various advantages depending on the clinical situation and the clinician’s personal
preferences and experience. The approximate timescale and principle differences between
generations are shown in Table 1:

Generation Developed Mechanism / Steps Description

Enamel etch only, adhesion to

smear layer via formation of
1 1960s/1970s chelate compounds with
No Longer in Use

superficial calcium ions via co-

monomers

Enamel etch only, adhesion to

smear layer via interaction of
calcium ions in smear layer
2 1960s/1970s
and/or dental substrate and the
polymerisable phosphates in
bis-GMA resin

Selective enamel etch/etch-

and-rinse with H3PO4 or other
Selective-Etch/
3 1980s/1990s organic acid. Dentin
Etch & Rinse

Multi-Step
conditioned with primer to
modify or remove smear layer
Total-Etch/ Total-etch/etch-and-rinse:
4 1990s
Multi-/3-Step separate primer and adhesive
Total-Etch/ Total-etch/etch-and-rinse:
5 Mid 1990s
2-Step combined primer and adhesive
Self-etch: etch and primer
Self-Etch/ combined then hydrophobic
6 Late 1990s
Self-Etch

2-Step bonding i.e. self-etch/multi-

component
Self-etch: etch, primer and
Self-Etch/
7 2000 + adhesive combined i.e. self-
1-Step
etch/single component

Table 1: Classification overview of adhesives according to generation, mechanism of adhesion and

number of clinical steps

3.1.1 Generations of Ivoclar Vivadent Adhesives

The multi-step system Syntac can be seen as belonging to both the 3rd and 4th generation of
adhesives as it can be used with the selective-etch technique (3rd generation) or the total-
etch technique (4th generation). ExciTE F is a typical one bottle (or Vivapen) adhesive
involving a separate total-etch step and belongs to the 5th generation. AdheSE as a two-step
self-etch system belongs to the 6th generation and AdheSE One F a single component self-
etching adhesive to the 7th generation.
 ®
Scientific Documentation Syntac Page 7 of 35

3.2 Classification by mechanism of adhesion / clinical steps

Whilst the generational system of classification is helpful for looking at adhesives from a
historical perspective, with regard to adhesives currently on the market (generations 3-7), it
may be more meaningful to classify them according to how they work and how many working
steps are involved.
Modern dental adhesives can be classified into two basic types: etch-and-rinse and self-
etch adhesives. Although the etch-and-rinse term is often used synonymously for total-etch
adhesives theoretically it covers both total-etch and selective-etch adhesives (i.e. total-etch:
both enamel and dentin are etched and rinsed; selective-etch: just the enamel is etched and
rinsed). These systems can then be sub-categorized based on the number of clinical steps
involved: e.g. multi-step, three-step and two-step etch-and-rinse systems and two-step and
one-step self-etch systems.
The etch-and-rinse system is distinct in that it has a separate etch-and-rinse step prior to the
priming and bonding steps. The three-step etch-and-rinse/total-etch system (using fourth-
generation adhesives) follows the conventional “etch-rinse-prime-bond” approach. The two-
step etch-and-rinse system (using fifth-generation adhesives, also known as one-bottle
adhesives) combines the primer and the bonding agent into one application. The self-etch
adhesive system eliminates the rinsing phase after etching by using non-rinse acidic
monomers to etch and prime dentin simultaneously. The two-step self-etch system
(involving sixth-generation adhesives) uses acidic monomers as self-etch primers in the
initial step and an adhesive resin in the second step. The one-step self-etch system (using
seventh generation adhesives, also known as all-in-one adhesives) combines the (self-etch)
acidic primer with the adhesive resin in one application step. This allows for simultaneous
infiltration of adhesive resin to the depth of demineralisation, which may reduce
postoperative sensitivity.
To provide an overview of adhesives from both a historical and current perspective, Table 1
attempts to combine both methods of classification.

4. Ivoclar Vivadent Adhesives: Product Range

Ivoclar Vivadent produces both total-etch and self-etch adhesives. There are valid pros and
cons to both types of adhesive and of the multi-bottle/single bottle variants within these
groups. Total-etch adhesives offer longer clinical experience and a more pronounced etch
pattern in enamel and extensive removal of the smear layer. Self-etch adhesives on the other
hand may be less technique sensitive,20 reducing the danger of collagen collapse and can be
applied in fewer steps.
Figures 3a and 3b show how each Ivoclar Vivadent adhesive achieves a bond. Figure 3a
depicts the steps involved for the light cured adhesives Syntac, ExciTE F, AdheSE and
AdheSE One F. Figure 3b shows the steps necessary for dual curing adhesives.
 ®
Scientific Documentation Syntac Page 8 of 35

Fig. 3a: Light curing adhesives. Fig. 3b: Dual curing adhesives

5. Syntac
Syntac was introduced to the market in 1990. It is a traditional multi-step adhesive system
often referred to in dental fields as “Syntac Classic” Although the suffix “classic” does not
originate with Ivoclar Vivadent AG, the name is suitable as it embodies the traditional, long-
term, well known and reliable aspects of the adhesive.

Syntac is a light-cured, multiple-component adhesive system with universal application fields.

It can be used for bonding both direct restorations i.e. light, self and dual curing composites
and compomers and indirect restorations i.e. metal-free restorations with light or dual curing
luting composites such as Variolink II. The primer and adhesive contain no light curing
initiators, thus Syntac is always applied in combination with the light-cured bonding material
Heliobond.

Fig. 4: The Syntac Adhesive System: Syntac

Primer, Syntac Adhesive and Heliobond
 ®
Scientific Documentation Syntac Page 9 of 35

Syntac is easy to use and features a well-arranged design. The colours of the bottles
correspond with the colours of the brushes and the numbers on the bottles correspond with
the numbered compartments on the Vivapad (see Fig. 5).

Fig. 5: Syntac: 3 bottle system – Syntac Primer, Syntac Adhesive and Heliobond

5.1 Syntac mechanism

The breakthrough in dentin bonding came with the multi/three-step systems, which bridged
the gap between the hydrophilic dentin and the hydrophobic resin-based filling material by
the sequential application of the components. In essence, the multi-component systems
meant that each bonding issue could be dealt with in turn enabling the practitioner to achieve
a transition between the hydrophilic dentin and hydrophobic composite. Syntac is a classic
example of this 3rd/4th generation of adhesives. After etching and rinsing, the hydrophilic
Syntac Primer is applied to the entire cavity (enamel and dentin) followed by the hydrophilic
Syntac Adhesive and then a layer of the hydrophobic Heliobond.
The table below shows the working steps that Syntac performs in order to establish a bond
between the restorative material and the tooth structure. Both the selective-etch and total-
etch techniques are considered:

Syntac
Working step Purpose of working step
Components
Conditioning enamel Expose retentive enamel etch pattern Total Etch

Remove smear layer and expose collagen and tubules Total Etch
Conditioning dentin Modify smear layer and expose collagen and tubules /
Syntac Primer
Infiltration, hydrophilic wetting
Infiltrate exposed collagen with resins hydrophilic
enough to wet dentin, e.g. PEGDMA plus maleic acid,
Priming/Wetting glutaraldehyde and water: Create transition between Syntac Adhesive
hydrophilic substrate and planned restoration via tag
formation
Coat the primed dentin and the etched enamel with a
hydrophobic bonding agent to provide a bond to the
Bonding Heliobond
composite/restoration. Cross linkage via co-
polymerisation with restorative material

Table 2: How Syntac works

 ®
Scientific Documentation Syntac Page 10 of 35

The conditioning steps are marked in blue. The selective-etch technique involves the steps
highlighted in light blue and the total-etch (preferred) technique involves all steps highlighted
dark and light blue. When the total-etch technique is used and the entire cavity has been
etched, Syntac Primer is applied to the dentin for infiltration/wetting purposes rather than
smear layer modification as etching and rinsing will have already removed the smear layer.

The conditioning and priming effects of Syntac on dentin are shown below:

Fig. 6: Dentin with smear layer intact

(SEM 10µm)

Fig. 7: Dentin after treatment with

Syntac Primer: Opened and partially
opened tubules (SEM 10µm)

Fig. 8: Dentin (dissolved surface) to

show “polymer tags” of Syntac after
adhesive treatment (SEM 10µm)

5.2 Selective-etch vs. total-etch

Syntac can be applied using the selective-etch technique whereby only the enamel is etched
with phosphoric acid followed by dentin conditioning with the Syntac Primer as indicated for
3rd generation adhesives in Table 1. However it is now more standard practice to use Syntac
according to the total-etch/etch-and-rinse technique, as it is generally acknowledged that
better results are achieved with this technique.21 Both the enamel (15-30 seconds) and the
dentin (10-15 seconds) are etched with phosphoric acid before primer application to the
entire cavity.
When Syntac was first launched, clinicians were directed to use the selective-etch technique;
but with increasing knowledge and study into the field of adhesives the total-etch technique
became more popular. Dentin etching removes the smear layer which is widely believed to
improve the overall bond.7,8 For many it is considered critical technology and a prerequisite
for the formation of a stable hybrid layer.22,23
Gwinnett et al. in 1992 24 compared the selective and total-etch techniques with Syntac by
comparing the dentin bond and marginal seal after each processing technique with
Heliomolar. Although bond strength was not affected by the etching, the marginal seal was
improved. Frankenberger et al. also compared selective and total etching and reported
improved bond strengths with Syntac when the total-etch technique was used - though the
difference was not significant.25 In essence, the etch-and-rinse/total-etch technique can be
 ®
Scientific Documentation Syntac Page 11 of 35

considered the current standard technique for Syntac although some clinicians do still use
the former.

5.3 Trends in adhesive use

Adhesives assigned to more recent generations do not necessarily feature better properties
than adhesives of earlier generations. Dentists are largely aware of this and despite the
industry progress from multi-component etch-and-rinse to all-in-one self-etching adhesives,
the former remain popular and enjoy a good reputation for reliability.
Self-etching two-component and all-in-one adhesives exhibited the largest market growth
since 2003, one-bottle total-etch adhesives however also increased in use. Germany is the
largest market for Syntac where sales have remained strong (24% market share in the
conventional bonding sector/GfK Survey 2009/2010) if relatively static. Conventional bonding
also still comprises approximately 45% of the German bonding market in terms of sales with
self-etching accounting for the rest.26 In terms of actual adhesive use, a GfK survey of 300
dentists in 2010, reported that an estimated 62% of the adhesive procedures carried out
were conventional/etch-and-rinse with the remaining 38% reported as self-etch procedures.27
Due to differences in the ability of self-etch and total-etch adhesives in etching enamel and
dentin, many dentists intuitively still prefer total-etch adhesives. Notably if a major fraction of
the bonding area is enamel e.g. aesthetically sensitive anterior restorations.
The success of adhesive restorations not only depends on the type of adhesive used but
also on their correct application. Failures in application may result in increased marginal
discoloration, postoperative sensitivity and loss of retention. Many dentists therefore decide
to stay with the product that has been working well for them. Syntac and other multi-
component etch-and-rinse adhesives have therefore not been substituted by the “simpler”
self-etching and all-in-one products but are used alongside them. It is generally accepted that
the more time given to adhesive technique the better the clinical results, and that phosphoric
acid etching remains the most effective way of pre-treating enamel due to the consistently
better marginal quality achieved with this method.28 In this vein, there has been considerable
discussion about the resurrection of selective-etching for self-etch adhesives. Frankenberger
compared dentin and enamel bond values for self-etch adhesives used according to
manufacturer instructions and again after an initial total-etch step. Whereas enamel values
were shown to increase considerably the values on dentin tended to worsen. Selective-
etching would therefore appear sensible when bonding to both enamel and dentin.28,29
According to Frankenberger, selective-etching always makes sense in combination with self-
etch adhesives. 21

Syntac “Classic”
Multi-step adhesives such as Syntac remain popular due to their reliability. The Syntac
adhesive system has been used for over 20 years with exceptional clinical success.30,31,32
Numerous studies and millions of satisfied users are testament to this success. Accepted as
a “classic”, Syntac has evolved into a “gold standard” for adhesives, and is often used as a
product for comparison in both in vitro and clinical studies.29,33-36
 ®
Scientific Documentation Syntac Page 12 of 35

6. Technical Data

Syntac Primer & Syntac Adhesive

2- phase adhesive system

Standard – Composition (in weight %)

Primer Dimethacrylates 25.0

Maleic acid 4.0
Solvent 71.0
Stabilizer < 0.1

Adhesive Dimethacrylate 35.0

Maleic acid < 0.01
Glutaraldehyde 5.0
Water 60.0

Physical property

Shear bond strength on dentin > 12 MPa

Heliobond
Light curing bonding agent

Standard – Composition (in weight %)

Bis-GMA 59.5
Triethylenglycole dimethacrylate 39.7
Stabilizers and Catalysts 0.8

Physical properties

Vickers hardness HV 0.2/30 180 MPa

Refraction index nD25 1.5129
 ®
Scientific Documentation Syntac Page 13 of 35

7. In vitro Investigations
Numerous in vitro investigations are carried out during the development phase of a dental
product. Though not capable of predicting clinical success they can be useful indicators. In
the development of dental adhesives, the adhesive strength and marginal quality are of
primary importance. Tests are carried out on extracted human or bovine teeth and usually
take place with the counterpart i.e. direct/indirect restoration they are intending to bond to the
tooth structure.
Several in vitro tests with positive results for Syntac were carried out in the 1990s coinciding
with the market launch. Most of the comparator products in these tests however, are no
longer available, thus the more recent and comprehensive in vitro study results from
Frankenberger et al. are presented here. In the meantime, there is of course more
meaningful clinical data underpinning the success of Syntac (see chapter 8).

7.1 Syntac and bond strength

There is currently no internationally standardised test protocol for bond strength testing. In
general, in shear bond strength tests, a composite test specimen that has been bonded to a
substrate with the adhesive to be tested, is sheared off parallel to the bonding surface. In a
tensile strength test the load is applied at a right angle to the bonding surface.
In a review of adhesive techniques in 2010, Frankenberger et al. compared the micro-tensile
bond strengths of 18 currently available total-etch/etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives
used to bond composite to dentin and enamel test specimens after 6 months’ water storage
at 37°C. See Fig. 9.
All adhesives were applied according to manufacturer instructions. Syntac and A.R.T.
Bond/Coltène Whaledent were processed using the total-etch technique. Syntac compares
very favourably when compared to other total-etch and self-etch adhesives, achieving the 3rd
highest bond strengths for both enamel and dentin in this study. In general the multi-step
adhesives achieve better results than the all-in-one products. As mentioned in section 5.3,
the same test carried out on the same products whereby all were subjected to the total-etch
technique improved the bonding strength to enamel but worsened that to dentin, suggesting
that the selective-etch technique could make sense for self-etching adhesives when clinically
feasible.28
 ®
Scientific Documentation Syntac Page 14 of 35

Syntac

ART Bond

OptiBond FL

XP Bond

OptiBond Solo +

Scotchbond 1 XT

One Coat SE Bond

Clearfil SE Bond

AdheSE
Dentin

AdheSE One F Enamel

G­Bond

Futurabond M

Clearfil S3

One Coat 7.0

iBond SE

Xeno V

Prompt L­Pop

Easy Bond

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Fig. 9: Micro-tensile bond strengths on extracted permanent teeth (dentin and enamel) after 6-months’
28
water storage at 37°C. (Schmelz = Enamel). Frankenberger et al. 2010
 ®
Scientific Documentation Syntac Page 15 of 35

7.2 Syntac and marginal integrity

Microleakage can be defined as the clinically undetectable passage of bacteria, fluids or
molecules between the cavity wall and the restorative material. Marginal leakage may cause
sensitivity, discoloration of margins and secondary caries. It is usually measured using
extracted teeth that have been subjected to temperature changes or mechanical loading. In
functional evaluations, the marginal seal is assessed by means of dye penetration, whereas
in morphological evaluations the quality is evaluated by means of replica investigation under
the scanning electron microscope (SEM).
Frankenberger (2006) considered bonding to enamel and dentin and marginal quality
amongst various total-etch/etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives used for bonding Class II
cavities before and after chewing simulation. He evaluated the percentage of perfect margin
and in enamel demonstrated that the total-etch adhesives produced better results than the
self-etch 2-step and 1-step adhesives (respectively) both before and after chewing
simulation. In dentin the multi-step systems produced clearly better results than the all-in-one
adhesives.37
In 2008, Frankenberger et al. investigated the marginal quality of ceramic inlays luted with
various adhesive/cement systems. Marginal quality was evaluated under an SEM using
epoxy resin replicas before and after thermo-mechanical loading (TML). Nine combinations
of adhesive and luting composite (total-etch and self-etch) or self-etch cement alone were
investigated. All systems involving the etch-and-rinse approach resulted in significantly
higher percentages of gap-free margin in enamel than all other luting systems (p<0.05).
Syntac + Variolink II exhibited the highest percentage of gap free margins after TML (Fig. 10)

Before TML (%) After TML (%)

100

75

50

25

0
Prime & XP XP Syntac + Multilink AdheSE DC ED Primer Rely X Maxcem
Bond NT Bond/SCA Bond/SCA Variolink II Primer + + Variolink + Panavia F Unicem
DC + + Calibra LC + Multilink II 2.0
Calibra Calibra
TE Bonding/Luting SE Bonding/Luting SE Cement

Fig. 10: Percentage of gap-free margins in enamel with nine different bond/luting systems before and
38
after thermo-mechanical loading. SEM analysis. Frankenberger et al. 2008

For dentin margins, the self-etch adhesive AdheSE DC +Variolink II exhibited the highest
percentages of gap free margins. The authors conclude that etch-and-rinse adhesives
combined with conventional luting resin composites still reveal the best prognosis for
adhesive luting of glass ceramic inlays.38
 ®
Scientific Documentation Syntac Page 16 of 35

In 2009, Frankenberger evaluated modern bonding strategies overall and presented the
results of marginal integrity investigations after chewing simulation. The results are shown in
Fig 11. Syntac restorations featured the joint highest per cent with perfect margins in enamel
(approx. 90%) and the second highest in dentin after Clearfil SE Bond/Kuraray. Similarly to
Fig. 9, the results show that pre-etching with phosphoric acid, remains the most effective way
of preparing enamel as all the total-etch (etch-and-rinse) adhesives show significantly better
margin quality than the self-etch adhesives.21

Syntac

A.R.T. Bond

OptiBond FL

Prime&Bond NT

XP Bond

Scotchbond 1

Scotchbond 1 XT

ExciTE

Prompt L­Pop

iBond

Xeno III

Xeno V

G­Bond
Dentin
iBond SE
Enamel
OptiBond AIO

AdheSE One

One Up Bond F

One Up Bond F +

Futurabond NR

Easy Bond

Clearfil S3

Scotchbond SE

AdheSE

Clearfil SE Bond

Clearfil Protect Bond

One Coat SE

0 20 40 60 80 100

Fig. 11: Percentage of perfect margins in dentin and enamel in approximal dentin-limited
21
composite fillings after thermo-mechanical loading. Frankenberger et al. 2009
 ®
Scientific Documentation Syntac Page 17 of 35

8. Clinical Investigations
Clinical trials remain the ultimate way to collect scientific evidence on the clinical
effectiveness of an adhesive/restorative treatment.39 Both external and internal clinical trials
were undertaken and as Syntac has been on the market for over two decades a review of
the clinical literature was carried out.

8.1 External controlled clinical studies

A number of external clinical studies were carried out with Syntac around the time of product
launch. The studies conducted at European and American universities were of up to four
years in duration and investigated the clinical success of Syntac when used for both direct
and indirect dental treatment. The studies implemented the total-etch technique. A brief
overview of the results of these seven studies is given in Table 3:

Head of Study Restoration Type Study Length Results

I. Krejci Syntac / Tetric 4 years Clinical evaluation at 6, 12 and
University of Zürich 39 Direct posterior 48 months: 100% clinically
Switzerland
40,41
restorations acceptable, no fractures, no
caries after 4 years.
A. Petschelt Syntac / IPS Empress 4 years After 4 years 7 of 96
University of Erlangen 23 Onlays restorations had to be replaced
Germany
42,43 (7%). 90% were in good
73 Inlays
condition.
L. Pröbster Syntac / IPS Empress 4 years Kaplan Meier survival rate
University of Tübingen 254 Inlays after 41 months of 94 +/- 0.7%.
Germany
30 4 fractures occurred
49 Onlays
M. Fradeani Syntac / IPS Empress 3 years Kaplan Meier survival rate of
Louisiana State Uni 144 Crowns 95.35% after almost six years.
USA
44 5 fractures whereby in 2 cases
the minimum wall thickness
was not observed.
R. Mazer Syntac / Helio Progress 3 years Evaluation after treatment, 3
University of Alabama 50 Direct Class V and 6 months, 1, 2 and 3 years
USA
45
restorations using USPHS criteria. 100%
intact, 7% showed leakage,
90% showed no marginal
staining, no irritation
C. Loher Syntac / Tetric 3 years Evaluation at 8, 15, 24 and 36
University of Munich 33 Direct Class V months. 93% α and β scores.
Germany
46,47
restorations Superior results in comparison
to GIC restorations and Dyract
(83.3%)
J. Lasfargue Syntac / Tetric 1 year Evaluation using USPHS
University of Paris 30 Direct Class I criteria, x-ray and indirect
France
48 replicas: 100% in situ, no loss
42 Direct Class II
or fracture with majority
restorations
scoring α. Average occlusal
loss of replicas ≤ 25 µm.

Table 3: Overview of external clinical studies for direct and indirect restorations with Syntac: Ivoclar
Vivadent initiated studies 1992-1998
 ®
Scientific Documentation Syntac Page 18 of 35

8.2 Internal controlled clinical studies

Two internal studies at Ivoclar Vivadent were recently conducted using the composites Tetric
EvoCeram and IPS Empress Direct. Syntac was used as the bonding agent in both studies:

8.2.1 Dr. Arnd Peschke, R&D Clinic, Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein. Five year
clinical evaluation of posterior nano-hybrid composite resin restorations

Background: In this prospective clinical trial, employees of Ivoclar Vivadent AG who

required Class I or II fillings in posterior cavities were recruited to participate in a clinical
study with the nano-hybrid composite Tetric EvoCeram. A total of 50 Class I and II cavities
were treated with Syntac and Tetric EvoCeram. The material was polymerised with the Pulse
program of the Astralis 10 curing light and the restorations were polished with Astropol.
Restorations were evaluated using selected FDI criteria.

Status: The follow-up examinations took place after 6 months, 1, 2 and 5 years. After 5
years, 34 restorations could be examined according to their clinical properties and rated as
follows: 1=A ”excellent”, 2=A2 ”good” (after correction “very good”), 3=B ”satisfactory”, 4=C
”unsatisfactory” (but repairable) and 5=D ”poor” (replacement necessary). Three cases
dropped out due to a change in the prosthetic planning and the remaining drop-outs were
due to the patients having moved away.

Results: After 5 years there was a 100% survival rate i.e. 100% of the restorations, that
were available for evaluation, were still in place; only 1 restoration (3%) had to be repaired
due to minor material fractures. 38% of all restorations were in a clinically “very good” to
“good” and 59% in a clinically “satisfactory” condition i.e. 97% were satisfactory or better.
From six months onwards, no postoperative sensitivity was ascertained.49

4
Tetric EvoCeram Baseline 6 months 1 year 2 years 5 years
Number 50 50 49 45 34

Fractured restoration 100%A 100%A 100%A 100%A 97%A, 3%C

2)
Marginal 1) 1) 84%A, 16%B 53%A, 26%A2
100%A 82%A, 18%B 84%A, 16%B 2)
irregularities , 21%B
82%A, 18%B 46%A,
Marginal 1) 1) 2)
100%A 92%A, 8%B 88%A, 12%B 12%A2 ,
discolouration 2)
42%B
1)
98%A, 2%B 88%A, 9%A2 ,
Marginal gaps 100%A 100%A 98%A, 2%B 1)
3%B
Insufficient amount 100%A 100%A
100%A 98%A, 2%B 100%A
of material
3) 3) 87%A, 13%B 15%A, 50%A2,
Surface texture 100%A 84%A, 16%B 88%A, 12%B
35%B
Secondary caries 100%A 100%A 100%A 100%A 100%A
Postop. sensitivity 97%A, 3%B 100%A 100%A 100%A 100%A
Survival rate 100%A 100%A 100%A 100% 100%

Table 4: Five year results for clinical characteristics of Tetric EvoCeram/Syntac restorations
1) A maximum 10% of the length of the restoration margin was affected.
2) A maximum 25% of the length of the restoration margin was affected.
3) Only small areas within the occlusal contacts were affected.
4) The FDI criteria were used for the evaluation at the 5-year recall; A=clinically excellent, A2=clinically good,
B=clinically satisfactory, C=clinically unsatisfactory but repairable and D=clinical failure.
 ®
Scientific Documentation Syntac Page 19 of 35

Conclusion: After an observation period of 5 years, all restorations, that were available for
evaluation, were still in place and no absolute failure was observed. Only one restoration
required minor repair work due to chipping. Documented marginal flaws affected only small
portions of the total margin length. The combination of Tetric EvoCeram and Syntac showed
a very reliable clinical performance after 5 years in posterior restorations and an outstanding
marginal quality.

8.2.2 Dr. Arnd Peschke, Dr. Lukas Enggist. R&D Clinic, Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan,
Liechtenstein. Evaluation of Class I to Class V cavities restored with IPS Empress
Direct/Syntac.

Background: The clinical behaviour of 60 IPS Empress Direct restorations (Classes I-V)
placed with the Syntac adhesive system, was observed. The purpose of the study was to
evaluate the clinical performance of IPS Empress Direct in terms of reliability, function and
biological aspects. All restorations were placed using a rubber dam for isolation.

Cavity class No. of fillings Valid percentage

I 7 11.7%
II 13 21.7%
III 14 23.3%
IV 8 13.3%
V 18 30.0%
Total: 60 100%

Table 5: Percentage of IPS Empress Direct/Syntac restorations in each cavity class

Status: Complete 24-month data is available. Of 60 restorations, it was possible to evaluate

57. One patient who received 2 fillings did not turn up to the 2-year control appointment and
one Class V filling was lost in the first 6 months due to retention loss.

Results: The evaluation of filling quality is based on the criteria published by Hickel et al.
2007.50 As a result α stands for „clinically excellent/very good“, α2 for „clinically good“, β for
„clinically adequate/satisfactory“ γ for „clinically unsatisfactory“ and δ for „clinically
inadequate“.

Criteria pertaining to marginal integrity were semi-quantitatively evaluated according to the

percentage (portion) of the total margin affected (SQUACE).
 ®
Scientific Documentation Syntac Page 20 of 35

Class I-V
Assessment overall Class I and Class III Class V
Percent Criteria Classification (SD) II (SD) and IV (SD) (SD)
Evaluated
restorations
(24 months) - 95 90 100 94,4
Survival rate - 98.3 100 100 94,4
% of all Restorations

α 93.1 94.4 90.9 94.4

α2 0 0 0 0
Material fracture /
β 5,2 5.6 9.1 0
retention
γ 0 0 0 0
δ 1,7 0 0 5,6
α 100 100 100 100
Secondary caries
α2-δ 0 0 0 0
Postoperative α 100 100 100 100
sensitivity α2-δ 0 0 0 0
α 97,2 (±5.3) 96,7 (±5,4) 97 (±5.7) 98 (±4.7)
Marginal
α2 2.8 (±5.3) 3.3 (±5,4) 3.0 (±5.7) 2.0 (±4.7)
irregularities
β-δ 0 0 0 0
α 99.5 (±2.8) 98,3 (±4,6) 99.8(±1.2) 98.8 (±4.9)
Marginal
% of Margin *

α2 0.5 (±2.8) 0.3 (±1.2) 0.2 (±1) 1.2 (±4.9)

discoloration
β-δ 0 0 0 0
α 100 100 100 100
Marginal gaps
α2-δ 0 0 0 0
Lack of filling Α 100 100 100 100
material α2-δ 0 0 0 0
Α 100 100 100 100
Margin fracture
α2-δ 0 0 0 0

Table 6: Evaluation and classification of restorations according to Hickel’s criteria

* Average of total margin of all included restorations

Conclusion: Apart from the loss of one Class V filling, no other clinically unacceptable
assessments were made. The marginal quality of the fillings overall was very good with
100% of restorations scoring α or α2 i.e. clinically excellent or clinically good. Only slight
marginal irregularities and marginal discolorations were ascertainable which on average
concerned much less than 5% of the total margin of all restorations. There was no post-
operative sensitivity. After 24 months, IPS Empress Direct bonded with Syntac has proved to
be very reliable.
 ®
Scientific Documentation Syntac Page 21 of 35

8.3 Literature review: Direct restorations with Syntac

In contrast to dental composites, there are still considerable differences in performance
among dental adhesives. This is impressively illustrated by recent reviews on clinical trials on
posterior restorations 51 and adhesives.39 Posterior restorations using up-to-date composite
materials mostly show annual failure rates of less than 3%.51 In contrast, annual failure rates
of adhesive restorations in non-carious Class V lesions where macro-mechanical retention is
at a minimum and thus the quality of adhesive bond paramount - vary between 0 – 48%.
Furthermore, one-step self-etch adhesives (all-in-one) tend to exhibit significantly higher
annual failure rates than multi-component, two-step total-etch and two-step self-etch
adhesives. 52 A dentist’s choice of a clinically proven adhesive can therefore substantially
contribute to the success of a restoration.
A search of the dental literature, yielded positive reinforcement for the use of Syntac in both
direct and indirect clinical situations.

8.3.1 Class I and Class II restorations

Krämer et al. (2011), conducted a controlled prospective split-mouth study over six years to
evaluate the clinical behaviour of two different resin composites in extended Class II
cavities.53 Thirty patients received 68 direct resin composite restorations Solobond M +
Grandio/Voco (n=36) or Syntac + Tetric Ceram (n=32). Restorations were examined
according to modified USPHS criteria at baseline, after six months, one, two, four and six
years. The survival rate for all restorations was 100% after six years, hypersensitivity was
significantly reduced over time and no significant difference was found between the two
restorative materials.53,54
Schirrmeister et al. evaluated the clinical performance of Ceram.X + an experimental one
bottle etch-and-rinse adhesive (K-0127)/Dentsply compared to Tetric Ceram + Syntac which
served as a control. This prospective study ran over four years with check-ups made at
baseline, 1, 2 and 4 years. 43 patients received two (Ceram X/K-0127 and Tetric
Ceram/Syntac) Class I or Class II molar restorations. At the 4 year recall, 27 patients could
be examined. The cumulative failure rate for the Ceram X group was 7.4% and 3.7% in the
Tetric Ceram group. Slight marginal discoloration was found in 19.2% of Ceram X
restorations and in 15.4% of Tetric Ceram restorations. No sensitivity, recurrent caries or
changes in surface texture were recorded after four years and no statistically significant
differences were found between the two restorative systems (p > 0.05).36
Manhart et al. compared Quixfil plus the self-etch adhesive Xeno III/Dentsply (n= 46) with
Tetric plus Syntac as a control (n=50) in a longitudinal randomised controlled trial over four
years. Restorations were placed in stress–bearing Class I and II cavities in first or second
molars. Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline and after 4 years using modified
USPHS criteria. At the last recall 37 Quixfil and 46 Tetric Ceram restorations could be
assessed. A total of 89.2% of Quixfil and 97.8% of Tetric Ceram composites were assessed
to be clinically excellent or acceptable. Four Quixfil restorations failed due to bulk fracture,
partial tooth fracture (n=2) and postoperative symptoms. One Tetric Ceram restoration was
lost due to problems with tooth integrity. No significant differences between the two
composites were detected at four years for any of the evaluated clinical criteria. Both sets of
materials demonstrated good clinical results after four years.55
 ®
Scientific Documentation Syntac Page 22 of 35

8.3.2 Class V restorations

Non-carious Class V restorations may be considered ideal for assessing the clinical
effectiveness of adhesives as they provide little macro-mechanical retention, they involve at
least 50% bonding to dentin and are widely available and accessible.39
Van Dijken et al. evaluated the clinical long-term retention to dentin of six different adhesive
systems. The study ran over 13 years and bonding efficiency was determined by the
percentage of lost restorations. Restorations were evaluated at baseline, 6, 12, 18 and 24
months and then at least every year over 13 years with regard to retention, marginal
adaptation, colour match, secondary caries and surface roughness. Of the original 270
restorations, 215 could be evaluated after 13 years. Significant differences in loss rates were
observed between the systems. The diagram below shows the annual failure rates for the
different adhesive systems. Vitremer and Syntac exhibited the highest retention rates i.e.
lowest failure rates and Syntac was ranked top in terms of clinical effectiveness.56

14

12

10
Annual failure rates (%)

0
Optibond Permagen Scotchbond MP Syntac P&S Vitremer

56
Fig. 12: Annual failure rates for six different adhesive systems. Van Dijken et al. 2008

As shown in Fig. 12, the annual failure rates for the etch-and-rinse systems were
Optibond/Kerr 3.1%, Permagen/Ultradent 13.0%, Scotchbond MP/3M ESPE 4.8%, Syntac
2.8%; for the self-etch system P&S/Dentsply 4.4%; and the resin-modified glass ionomer
cement Vitremer/3M ESPE 2.7%. The overall cumulative loss at 13 years was 53%. Syntac
had one of the lowest cumulative loss counts at approximately 36%.
In a study by Mazer et al., the survival rate of direct restorations for abfracted (non-carious
cervical) lesions placed with Syntac was 100% after three years of service.57
Folwaczny compared four different tooth coloured materials for restoring Class V lesions:
The composite Tetric bonded with Syntac, the compomer Dyract bonded with PSA/Dentsply
and the resin modified glass ionomer cements Fuji II LC/GC and Photac Fil/ESPE. The alpha
ratings for the Tetric/Syntac group were superior in almost all cases compared to the other
groups i.e. regarding shade match, marginal integrity of enamel and dentin, marginal
discoloration and anatomic contours. The poorest results were observed with the glass
ionomers and the best clinical performance was found with Tetric/Syntac, however no
significant difference was found regarding retention amongst the four materials.58
 ®
Scientific Documentation Syntac Page 23 of 35

Peumans et al. in a review of literature from 1998-2004, compared the mean annual failure
rates (restoration losses) of different adhesive types in Class V restorations. Glass ionomer
cements proved to have the best clinical performance in terms of retention due to their self-
adhesive properties, however their aesthetic drawbacks are well known.29,39 The 3-step etch-
and-rinse adhesives and 2-step self-etch adhesives exhibited almost identically low failure
rates i.e. both showed a clinically reliable and predictably good clinical performance. The
clinical effectiveness of two-step total-etch adhesives and the two-step self-etch adhesives
was less favourable, while an inefficient clinical performance was noted for the one-step self-
etch (all-in-one) adhesives.39

25

20
Annual Failure Rate (%)

15

10

5
8.1
6.2
4.8 4.7
1.9
0
3-step etch and 2-step etch and 2-step self etch* 1-step self etch Glass ionomer
rinse rinse

39
Fig. 13: Mean annual failure rates per adhesive category. Peumans et al. 2005
* Syntac was allocated to this category.

The results for the 2-step self-etch adhesives are similar to the 3-step etch-and-rinse
adhesives. This is initially surprising, however can be explained by the unusual classification
system in this paper. As noted classifying adhesives is not a uniform field and in this study
Syntac is considered a 2-step “self-etch” adhesive whereas ordinarily it would be considered
a 3-step or multi-step total-etch/etch-and-rinse adhesive. The authors conclude that despite
the tendential trend towards simplification in adhesive protocols - so far simplification
appears to be associated with a loss of effectiveness.39
Heintze et al. carried out a recent (2010) meta-analysis on the clinical performance of
cervical restorations, in order to assess the most important factors influencing retention loss
and marginal discoloration. They found the clinical performance of cervical restorations to be
significantly influenced by the type of adhesive system used and/or the adhesive class to
which the system belongs. It was concluded that 3-step etch-and-rinse systems and 2-step
self-etch systems were preferable to 1-step self-etch systems or glass ionomer derivatives.59
 ®
Scientific Documentation Syntac Page 24 of 35

8.4 Literature review: Indirect restorations with Syntac

8.4.1 Inlays/Onlays
Survival rates of 92% after eight years’ service for IPS Empress inlays bonded with Syntac
and the different composite systems: Tetric, Dual Cement, Variolink and Variolink Ultra, were
reported by Krämer et al. in 2002.60,61 After 12 years’ service the restorations exhibited a
survival rate of 84%, as 15 of the original 96 restorations had to be replaced, 12 due to bulk
fracture. Significantly more bulk fractures were found when light-curing composite luting
agents as opposed to dual-cured were used. No secondary caries was observed.62
In a later study, Krämer et al. conducted a split-mouth prospective clinical trial with 94 IPS
Empress inlay/onlay restorations in 31 patients. Restorations were luted with either EBS
Multi + Compolute/3M ESPE or Syntac + Variolink II (selective-etch method). Evaluation
took place at baseline, and after 6 months, 1, 2, 4 and 8 years. The recall rate was 72% after
eight years. The Kaplan Maier survival rate was 96% at 4 years and 90% at 8 years.
Between the six recalls a statistically significant deterioration was found for marginal
adaptation. Though not significant, numerically the EBS Multi group resulted in more
postoperative sensitivity and the scans of the luting gap showed that Compolute was more
prone to wear (p<0.05). Otherwise there were no significant differences between the luting
systems.33,34
In a prospective comparison of the clinical performance of two different resin composites for
luting IPS Empress inlays and onlays; 83 IPS Empress restorations were placed in 30
patients. 43 with the self-adhesive resin cement RelyX Unicem/3M ESPE and 40 with Syntac
and Variolink II as a control. After 1 year of clinical service the Syntac group revealed
significantly better results regarding colour match and integrity.35
Coelho Santos et al. compared sintered (Duceram/Dentsply-Degussa) and pressable (IPS
Empress) ceramic inlays and onlays all luted with Syntac and Variolink II. After two years
both systems demonstrated excellent clinical performance with 100% evaluated as clinically
excellent or acceptable.63

CAD/CAM Inlays/Onlays
Bernhart et al. reported a survival rate of 95% after 3 years for Cerec Ceramic inlays luted
with Syntac and Dual Cement. Restorations were carried out by dental students in their 4th
semester after a short theoretical and practical course in the Cerec method. Good clinical
results were thus possible despite limited operator experience, suggesting the low technique
sensitivity of Syntac.64
Zimmer et al. conducted a 10 year study of Class I and II (inlays and onlays) CAD/CAM
ceramic restorations bonded adhesively with Syntac and Vita Cerec Duo Cement/VITA. An
initial 308 restorations were inserted into cavities in the posterior teeth of 95 patients
between 1992 and 1994. 74 patients returned for the 10 year recall involving 226
restorations. Of these 39 were Class I and 187 Class II (23 onlays involving one or more
cusp and 164 inlays). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was carried out whereby the following
criteria constituted failure: secondary decay, any kind of loss or fracture of the restoration,
tooth fracture or marginal gap reaching dentin or base material. The survival rate was 94.7%
after five years and 85.7% after 10 years. The authors also concluded that the Cerec 1
restorations as applied in this study were comparable to cast gold restorations.65
 ®
Scientific Documentation Syntac Page 25 of 35

Reich et al. conducted a three year pilot study, whereby 58 large CAD/CAM-fabricated all
ceramic restorations were placed on teeth with large coronal defects in 26 patients.
Restorations varied as necessary from onlays, reduced crowns, classic crowns endo-crowns
and veneers. Implant crowns were also included. The restorations were luted with Syntac
and either Variolink Ultra or Tetric Ceram. After 3 years the restorations were evaluated
according to USPHS criteria and 97% were rated “Bravo” (satisfactory) or better for marginal
integrity, secondary caries, discoloration and anatomical form i.e. all but 2 of the adhesively
luted restorations exhibited satisfactory clinical performance. These results were evaluated
as exceptionally positive given the compromised nature of the teeth in this study i.e. including
severe coronal destruction.66
Syntac clearly proves its suitability for use in the successful long term bonding of indirect
CAD/CAM ceramic restorations.

8.4.2 Crowns
Guess et al. reported survival rates of 100% after three years for all ceramic IPS e.max
Press crowns bonded with Syntac/Tetric. The study was designed to compare the clinical
performance and survival of IPS e.max Press and CAD/CAM fabricated ProCAD crowns. 80
molars of 25 patients requiring at least 2 new crowns were treated in a split mouth
prospective investigation. All crowns were luted with Syntac/Tetric. Clinical evaluation took
place at baseline, 13, 25 and 36 months according to modified USPHS criteria. The results
here are the mid-term (3-year) results of a 5 year study, and showed 100% survival for IPS
e.max Press crowns and 97% for ProCAD due to one severe fracture at 9 months. There
were no endodontic complications or cases of secondary caries; however both materials
demonstrated significantly decreased marginal adaptation, discolorations and surface
roughness over time. Both materials can be considered a reliable treatment option for the
restoration of larger defects in the posterior dentition. Syntac proved itself a very reliable
bonding agent.67
An eleven year study by Fradeani et al. investigated 125 IPS Empress crowns in 54 patients
bonded with Syntac or Allbond 2/Bisco and luted with Dual Cement or Variolink. A survival
rate for all crowns of 95.5% after eleven years was found with anterior crowns (98.9%) faring
better than posterior (84.4%). In this paper it is not possible however to establish which
crowns were bonded/luted with which material. 68
Van Dijken et al. recently completed a 15-year prospective study to investigate the
survivability of heat–pressed partial and complete all-ceramic coverages (IPS Empress).69
Coverages were allotted to four different groups. Group 1 – inlay, Group 2 – onlay, Group 3
crowns, Group 4 non-retentive endodontically treated teeth. 252 IPS Empress coverages
were placed in 121 patients as shown in Table 7.

Ceramic coverage IPS Empress* (n=252)

No. restorations n= 106 n=37 n=57 n=32 n=20

Adhesive Syntac* Gluma** Allbond 2*** Syntac* One Step***

Luting Agent Variolink* Bisfil 2B***

Table 7: Adhesive / Luting groups with IPS Empress. * Ivoclar Vivadent, ** Hereaeus Kulzer, *** Bisco
 ®
Scientific Documentation Syntac Page 26 of 35

The study aimed to test two hypotheses, that there was no difference in durability for ceramic
coverages placed with different luting agents and different bonding agents and that there was
no difference in durability between vital and non-vital teeth. Each restoration was evaluated
at baseline and then every year following using modified USPHS criteria. After 15 years 228
(90%) restorations could be evaluated. Of these 55 failed (24.1%), resulting in an overall
survival rate of 75.9%. The relative cumulative failure frequencies were also calculated for
the four different bonding systems.

50

45
Relative Cumulative Failure Freq. %

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
Gluma Allbond 2 Syntac One Step
69
Fig. 14: Relative cumulative failure frequency of different adhesive systems. Van Dijken et al. 2010

Gluma had a failure frequency of 27.3%, Allbond 2 of 22.6%, Syntac of 20.5% and One step
of 45%. Syntac thus exhibited the lowest cumulative failure rates and One Step differed
significantly from Syntac (p= 0.02) and Allbond (p=0.0001). The choice of bonding system
thus significantly affected the success of the restoration. Fourth generation systems like
Syntac provided a more predictable long term enamel-dentin bond with Syntac exhibiting the
best results. Men also showed a 31.7% failure frequency compared to 19.9% in women. A
significant difference in failure was also noted between the four preparation designs when
tested against years of survival with the non-vital teeth exhibiting the highest failure rate.69,70
 ®
Scientific Documentation Syntac Page 27 of 35

8.5 Syntac and postoperative sensitivity

8.5.1 Introduction
Dentin hypersensitivity is a common condition, notably after dental restorative work. It is
generally agreed that hypersensitivity occurs due to fluid movements within the dentin tubuli
in response to stimuli such as cold, warmth or osmotically active substances such as sugar.71
This fluid movement creates pressure change across the dentin, which can excite individual
intra-dental nerves. Studies performed in vivo revealed that the response of the pulpal
nerves was proportional to the pressure and therefore the rate of fluid flow. Various stimuli
trigger fluid flow within the dentin tubuli. The subsequent activation of pulpal nerves leads to
the perception of pain. The mechanism is depicted in Fig. 15.

Fig. 15: Hydrodynamic Theory

71
according to Brännström.

In a review of adhesive techniques carried out in 2010 using data from their own clinical
studies and in view of the supposed superiority of self-etch adhesives regarding
postoperative sensitivity - Frankenberger et al., in fact found no raised danger of
postoperative sensitivity in connection with etch-and-rinse adhesives.28,34,62,72 Perdigao et al.
also found no significant differences in postoperative sensitivity between patients treated with
self-etch adhesives and those treated with etch-and-rinse adhesives at any recall time.
Rather they concluded that restorative technique, rather than type of dentin adhesive may
influence postoperative sensitivity.73

8.5.2 Clinical evidence

Syntac is well known for its capacity to minimise postoperative sensitivity. The combination of
organic solvents, methacrylates and glutaraldehyde in Syntac are able to reduce the risk of
hypersensitivity by sealing the dentin tubuli preventing the fluid movement as shown
schematically in Fig. 15. The acetone in Syntac Primer and PEGDMA found in Syntac Primer
and Adhesive precipitate proteins and calcium ions from the dentinal fluid. The
glutaraldehyde in Syntac Adhesive is a cross-linking reagent capable of bonding to amine
groups of proteins. It forms covalent bonds between two proteins forming highly cross-linked
insoluble protein aggregates.74 Overall firm plugs of protein form, which seal the tubuli,
reduce permeability and in turn the incidence of dentinal hypersensitivity.In a four year
survival rate study of IPS Empress restorations, Pröbster et al., found postoperative
sensitivity to be below 1% in a total of 254 IPS Empress restorations placed with Syntac.30
 ®
Scientific Documentation Syntac Page 28 of 35

Cox and O’Neal reviewed the biological and clinical use of Syntac and Variolink adhesive
systems for cohesive hybridisation of vital dentin to prevent patient postoperative
hypersensitivity and bacterial micro-leakage following clinical preparation. In the clinical
research facility of the authors, patients reporting pre-operative hypersensitivity before
restoration with Syntac and Tetric, reported no postoperative hypersensitivity after 2 years –
demonstrating its effective long term seal.75
A pilot clinical trial by Monaco et al. evaluated the clinical behaviour of 3-unit inlay fixed
partial dentures (IFPDs) made of SR Adoro/Vectris and luted with either Syntac or Excite
DSC over a period of 2 years. 39 inlay bridges were made, placed in 39 adult patients and
evaluated according to USPHS criteria. Twenty restorations were luted with Syntac and 19
with Excite DSC. Variolink II was used to lute the restorations. At recalls patients were asked
questions about hypersensitivity. Moderate to severe hypersensitivity was found during the
first six months of the study. At the 1 week recall 95% received Alpha ��� scores for
postoperative sensitivity in the Syntac group compared to 61% in the Excite DSC group. At
the last recall after 2 years this was 100% for the Syntac group i.e. no sensitivity and 95% for
the Excite DSC group.76
If postoperative sensitivity is going to occur it tends to occur immediately and then wane or
disappear completely. If there has been no sensitivity following restorative work within a few
months it is unlikely to occur at all. Wilson et al. in a 4-year evaluation of Class II Tetric
restorations placed with Syntac using a decoupling technique also found zero postoperative
sensitivity at 1 month, 18 months, 2, 3 or 4 years.77. Schirrmeister et al. compared
restorations restored with Syntac and Tetric Ceram or Ceram. X and an experimental one
bottle etch-and-rinse adhesive K-0127/Dentsply DeTrey. Restorations were evaluated at
baseline, 1, 2 and 4 years. Whereas 10% of patients showed slight symptoms of
postoperative sensitivity at baseline, after one year no sensitivity was apparent in either
group.36

8.6 Summary
Syntac lives up to its excellent 20 year reputation. It has and continues to prove itself as a
suitable and clinically successful bonding agent in numerous medium and long term studies
for direct, indirect, (CAD/CAM or traditionally manufactured) restorations in both anterior and
posterior teeth. Survival rates of Syntac bonded restorations are notably high and uniform
indicating the low technique sensitivity of Syntac despite its 3-bottle system. Syntac is the
classic universal bonding agent for a sound chemical bond between composite material and
tooth structure.
 ®
Scientific Documentation Syntac Page 29 of 35

9. Biocompatibility
Biocompatibility has been variously defined. One definition is “The ability of a material to
perform with an appropriate host response in a specific application." 78

9.1 Introduction
The Syntac adhesive system consists of a primer, an adhesive, and a bonding agent. It
creates a chemically stable bond to the composite material and dental substrate. It contains:

Syntac Primer: TEGDMA, PEGDMA, maleic acid, acetone in an aqueous solution

Syntac Adhesive: PEGDMA, glutaraldehyde in an aqueous solution
Heliobond: Bis-GMA, TEGDMA

These components are ubiquitous in dental resin-based materials.

9.2 Acute toxicity

Acute oral toxicity data for all the major monomers contained in Syntac is available from
external sources:

LD 50 Species Reference
PEGDMA 10,200 mg/kg Mouse 79
TEGDMA 10,837 mg/kg Rat 80
Maleic acid 700-2400 mg/kg Rat, mouse 81
Acetone 10.7 ml/kg Rat 82
Glutaraldehyde 820 mg/kg Rat 83
Table 8: Acute toxicity data for Syntac components

LD 50 is the amount of a material given all at once, which causes the death of 50% of a
group of test animals. It is one method to measure the acute toxicity of a material. It is
expressed here per kg of body weight of the test animal. The higher the LD 50 value the
lower the toxicity i.e. more of a substance is necessary before it is toxic.
All the values shown in the table are above 700mg/kg. A typical application for one
restoration rarely requires more than 40mg of material. Assuming an average human weighs
50kg one can estimate a safety factor of approximately 1000. That is, 35,000mg (700mg x
50) of substance would be the minimum necessary LD50 for an average human. Assuming a
Syntac application of just 40mg, this results in a safety factor of 875 (35,000/40) i.e.
approximately 1000.
Farmer et al.84 tested the histological compatibility of Syntac. In three days, there was no
pulp reaction observed that derived from Syntac. After 80 days observation, the authors
excluded the possibility of pulp irritation due to Syntac.
 ®
Scientific Documentation Syntac Page 30 of 35

9.3 Sensitisation and irritation

Like all resin-based dental materials, Syntac contains methacrylate and acrylate derivatives.
Such materials may have an irritating effect and may cause sensitisation. This can lead to
allergic contact dermatitis. Allergic reactions are extremely rare in patients but are
increasingly observed in dental personnel, who handle uncured composite material on a daily
basis.85,86 These reactions can be minimized by clean working conditions and avoiding
contact of unpolymerised material with the skin. Commonly employed gloves, made of latex
or vinyl, do not provide effective protection against sensitisation to such compounds.
If Syntac is used incorrectly, the solution may come into contact with the oral mucosa. Any
concentration of glutaraldehyde is soluble in water however and if rinsed with copious
amounts of water immediately after contact, the tissues should suffer no damage.
Unintended contamination of mucous membranes can however go unnoticed and provoke
local tissue lesions.
Since the sensitising properties of the above mentioned components of Syntac are known
and declared in the instructions for use, no specific tests for sensitisation were conducted
with Syntac.

9.4 Conclusion
Syntac has been on the market since 1990 and no unexpected undesirable side effects have
become apparent. According to current knowledge, if used as indicated, Syntac poses no
risk for the patient, user or third party, and the benefits of the product exceed the residual
risk.
 ®
Scientific Documentation Syntac 31 of 35

10. References
1. Kugel G. J Am Dent Assoc 131, No suppl 1 20S-25S
2. Bowen R L. Dental filling material comprising vinyl silane treated fused silica and a binder
consisting of the reaction product of Bis phenol and glycidyl acrylate. 1962; Patent No:
3,066,112.
3. Eisenmann D R (1998). Enamel structure. In: Oral Histology Development, Structure and
Function. A R Ten Cate editor. St. Louis: Mosby, pp. 218-235.
4. Schroeder H E. Oral Structural Biology. Thieme; New York 1991
5. Alhadainy H A, Abdalla AI. 2-year clinical evaluation of dentin bonding systems. Am J Dent
1996; 9: 77-79.
6. Van Meerbeek B, Peumans M, Verschueren M, Gladys S, Braem M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle
G. Clinical status of ten dentin adhesive systems. J Dent Res 1994; 73: 1690-1702.
7. Gwinnett A J. Quantitative contribution of resin infiltration/hybridization to dentin bonding. Am J
Dent 1993; 6:7-9.
8. Gwinnett AJ. Dentin bond strength after air drying and rewetting. Am J Dent 1994; 7: 144-148.
9. Buonocore M G. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to
enamel surfaces. J Dent Res 1955; 34: 849-853.
10. Silverstone L M, Saxton C A, Dogon I L, Fejerskov O. Variation in the pattern of acid etching of
human dental enamel examined by scanning electron microscopy. Caries Res 1975; 9 (5):
373-387
11. Perdigao J, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeen B, Tome A R, Vanherle G, Lopes A B.
Morphological field emission-SEM study of the effect of six phosphoric acid etching agents on
human dentin. Dent Mater 1996; 12: 262-71
12. Pashley D H, Ciucci B, Sano H, Horner J A. Permeability of dentin to adhesive agents.
Quintessence Int. 1993; 24: 618-631
13. Van Meerbeek B, Vargas S, Inoue S, Yoshida Y, Peumans M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G.
Adhesives and cements to promote preservation dentistry. Operative Dentistry 2001.
(Supplement 6) 119-144
14. Hashimoto M, Tay F R, Svizero N R, de Gee A J, Feilzer A J, Sano H, Kaga M, Pashley D H.
The effects of common errors on sealing ability of total-etch adhesives. Dent Mater 2006; 22:
560-568.
15. van Dijken J W, Sunnegardh-Gronberg K. A four-year clinical evaluation of a highly filled
hybrid resin composite in posterior cavities. J Adhes Dent 2005; 7: 343-349.
16. Knitter K, Lösche GM, Blunck U. Effectiveness of Excite/Tetric Ceram in Class-II-restorations
after three years. J Dent Res 2005; 84 (Spec Iss B):Abstract# 0333.
17. Buonocore M G. Principles of adhesive retention and adhesive restorative materials. J. Am
Dent Assoc. 1963 Sep; 67: 382-91.
18. Huget E F, Denniston J C, Vilca J M. Dentin adhesives: a perspective. Military Medicine 1979;
144: 619-620
19. Crim G A, Swartz M L Phillips R W. An evaluation of cavosurface design and microleakage.
Gen Dent 1984; 32: 56-58
20. Haller B, Blunck U. Übersicht und Wertung der aktuellen Bonding-systeme. ZM 2003; 93 (7):
48-58
21. Frankenberger R. Adhäsivtechnik 2009 – Neuigkeiten Tipps und Trends. Quintessenz 2009;
60 (4) 415-423
22. Haller B. Mechanismus und Wirksamkeit von Dentinhaftvermittlern Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 49
(1994) 750-759
23. Cox CF, Suzuki S. Re-evaluating pulp protection: caIcium hydroxide liners vs. cohesive
hybridization J Am Dent Assoc 1994;125: 823-831
 ®
Scientific Documentation Syntac 32 of 35

24. Gwinnett AJ, Dickerson WG, Yu S. Dentin bond shear strength and microleakage for
Syntac/Heliomolar: a comparison between the manufacturer's and total etch technique. J
Esthet Dent 1992; 4: 164-168
25. Frankenberger R, Krämer N, Petschelt A. Fatigue behaviour of different dentin adhesives. Clin
Oral Invest. 1999; 3: 11-17
26. GfK Healthcare. DDM Jahresbericht 2010. Ivoclar Vivadent. Chairside Bereich
27. GfK Healthcare. ZaBus IV/2010
28. Frankenberger R, Schipper H M, Roggendorf M J. Adhäsivtechnik 2010 – Etch and Rinse oder
Self Etch Systeme? Quintessenz 2010; 61 (5): 537-542
29. Cardoso M V, Yoshida Yasuhiro, Van Meerbeek B. Adhesion to tooth enamel and dentin – a
view on the latest technology and future perspectives. Chapter 3 from: Roulet J-F, Kappert H
F. Statements – Diagnostics and therapy in dental medicine today and in the future.
Quintessenz Publishing 2009
30. Pröbster L, Ulmer HJ, Engel E; Four-year survival rate study of IPS Empress restorations;
DGZPW 1996: 59
31. Folwaczny M, Mehl A, Kunzelmann K H, Hickel R. Tooth colored restorations of class V
lesions using four different materials - five year results. J Dent Res 2000; 79: 361.
32. Mazer R, Cury C, Teixeira L, Leinfelder K. Influence of Maleic acid on the retention of
abfracted lesion restorations. J Dent Res 1994; 73: 275
33. Krämer N, Ebert J, Petschelt A, Frankenberger R. Ceramic inlays bonded with two adhesives
after 4 years. Dental Materials 2006; 22: 13-21
34. Krämer N, Taschner M, Lohbauer U, Petschelt A, Frankenberger R. Totally bonded ceramic
inlays and onlays after eight years. J Adhes Dent 2008; 10: 307-314
35. Taschner M, Frankenberger R, Garcia-Godoy F, Rosenbusch S, Petschelt A, Krämer N. IPS
Empress inlays luted with a self-adhesive resin cement after 1 year. 2009. Am J Dent. 22
1:55-59
36. Schirrmeister J F, Huber K, Hellwig E, Hahn P. Four-year evaluation of a resin composite
including nanofillers in posterior cavities. J Adhes Dent 2009; 11: 399-404
37. Frankenberger R. Bonding 2006 – Zeitersparnis versus Langzeiterfolg. Quintessenz 2006, 57
(5) 485-495
38. Frankenberger R, Lohbauer U, Schaible R B, Nikolaeinko S A, Naumann M. Luting of ceramic
inlays in vitro: Marginal quality of self-etch and etch-and –rinse adhesives versus self-etch
cements. Dent Materials 2008; 24:185-191
39. Peumans M, Kanumilli P, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B.
Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives: A systematic review of current clinical trials.
Dent Mater 2005; 21: 864-881.
40. Krejci I, Besek M, Lutz F Clinical and SEM study of Tetric resin composite in posterior teeth:
12-month results Am J Dent 1994; 7: 27-30
41. Boretti R, Krejci I, Lutz F Clinical and scanning electron microscopic evaluation of fine hybrid
composite restorations in posterior teeth after four years of wear J Dent Res 1997; 76: 41
42. Krämer N, Frankenberger G, Dettenhofer J, Ebert M, Pelka M, Petschelt A; Clinical Evaluation
of Ceramic Inlays and Onlays after Four Years; J Dent Res 1997; 76: 271
43. Pelka M, Teinelt C, Krämer N, Fassbender U, Petschelt A; In-vivo-Abrasion bei IPS Empress
Inlays; Dtsch Zahnarzt Z 50 1995: 917-919
44. Fradeani M, Aquilano A; Clinical Experience with IPS Empress Crowns; Into J Prosthodontics
1997; 10: 241-247
45. Mazer RB, Cury C, Teixeira L, Leinfelder K; Influence of maleic acid on the retention of
abfracted lesion restorations; J Dent Res 1994; 73: 275
46. Loher C, Kunzelmann KH, Hickel R; klinische Studie mit Hybridionomerzement-, Kompomer-
und Kompositfüllungen in Klasse-V-kavitäten; Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 1997; 52: 8
47. Folwaczny M, Loher C, Mehl A, Benz C, Hickel R; Class V fillings with four different light
curing materials: three years results; J Dent Res 1998; 77: 190
 ®
Scientific Documentation Syntac 33 of 35

48. Lasfargues J, Bonte E, Bnebot D, Pujol F, Bachelard B; Clinical performance of a microhybrid

posterior composite resin restorative material: a one-year clinical report; J Dent Res 1997; 76:
1117
49. A. Peschke, L. Enggist, and R.Watzke, Poster: Five-Year Clinical Evaluation of Posterior
Nano-Hybrid Composite Resin Restorations, Abstract Nr. 0237, 45th Meeting of the
Continental European Division (CED) of IADR, Budapest, September 2011.
50. Hickel R, Roulette J F, Bayne S, Heintze S D, Major I A, Peters M, Rousson V, Randall R,
Schmalz G, Tyas, M, Vanherle G. Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies
of dental restorative materials. Science Committee Project 2/98--FDI World Dental Federation
study design (Part I) and criteria for evaluation (Part II) of direct and indirect restorations
including onlays and partial crowns. J. Adhes Dent. 2007; 9 Suppl 1: 121-47.
51. Manhart J, Chen H-Y, Hamm G, Hickel R. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect
restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent 2004; 29: 481-508
52. Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P, Vuylsteke-Wauters M, Vanherle G. Five year
clinical performance of porcelain veneers. Quintessence Int. 1998; 29: 211-221
53. Krämer N, Garcia-Godoy F, Reinelt C, Feilzer A J, Frankenberger R. Nanohybrid vs. fine
hybrid composite in extended Class II cavities after six years. Dental Materials 2011; 27:455-
464
54. Krämer N, Reinelt C, Richter G, Petschelt A, Frankenberger R. Nanohybrid vs. fine hybrid
composite in Class II cavities: Clinical results and margin analysis after four years. Dental
Materials 2009; 25: 750-759
55. Manhart J, Chen H Y, Hickel R. Clinical evaluation of the posterior composite Quixfil in Class I
and II cavities: 4-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. J Adhes Dent 2010;12:237-
243
56. van Dijken J W V, Pallesen U. Long-term dentin retention of etch-and-rinse and self-etch
adhesives and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement in non-carious cervical lesions. Dental
Materials 2008; 24: 915-922
57. Leinfelder K, University of Alabama, Birmingham, USA, 1994 Mazer RB, Cury C, Teixeira L,
Leinfelder KF. Influence of maleic acid on the retention of abfracted lesion restorations.
JDR 1994; 73, 275 Abstr. 1389
58. Folwaczny M, Loher C, Mehl A, Kunzelmann K H, Hickel R. Class V lesions restored with four
different tooth-colored materials – 3-year results. Clin Oral Invest 2001; 5:31-39
59. Heintze S, Ruffieux C, Rousson V. Clinical performance of cervical restorations – a meta-
analysis. Dental Materials 2010; 26: 993-1000
60. Krämer N et al.; Clinical study conducted at the University of Erlangen, Germany; IADR,
Abstract 2002, San Diego
61. Krämer N, Frankenberger R. Clinical performance of bonded leucite-reinforced glass ceramic
inlays and onlays after eight years. Dent Materials 2005 21: 262-271
62. Frankenberger R, Taschner M, Garvia-Godoy F, Petschelt A, Krämer N. Leucite-reinforced
glass ceramic inlays and onlays after 12 years. J Adhes Dent 2008; 10: 393-398.
63. Coelho Santos M J M, Mondelli R F L, Lauris J R P, Navarro M F L. Clinical evaluation of
ceramic inlays and onlays fabricated with two systems: Two-year clinical follow up. Operative
Dent 2004; 29-2: 123-130
64. Bernhart J, Schulze D, Wrbas K-T. Evaluation of the clinical success of Cerec 3D inlays. Int J
Comp Dent 2009; 12: 265-277
65. Zimmer S, Göhlich O, Rüttermann S, Lang H, Raab WH-M, Barthel C R. Long-term survival of
Cerec restorations: A 10-year study. Operative Dentistry 2008; 33-5: 484-487
66. Reich S M, Wichmann M, Rinne H, Shortall A. Clinical performance of large, all-ceramic
CAD/CAM-generated restorations after three years. A pilot study. JADA 2004; 135: 605-612
67. Guess P C, Strub J R, Steinhart N, Wolkewitz M, Stappert C F J. All-ceramic partial coverage
restorations – midterm results of a 5-year prospective clinical split-mouth study. J Dent 2009
37: 627-637
 ®
Scientific Documentation Syntac 34 of 35

68. Fradeani M, Redemagni M. Klinische Evaluation von leuzitverstärkten glaskeramischen

Kronen über 11 Jahre. Quintessenz 2003; 54; 4: 379-386
69. van Dijken J W V, Hasselrot L. A prospective 15-year evaluation of extensive dentin-enamel-
bonded pressed ceramic coverages. Dental Materials 2010; 26: 929-939
70. Donovan T E, Anderson M, Becker W, Cagna D R, Hilton T J, Rouse J. Annual review of
selected scientific literature: Report of the committee on scientific investigation of the
American Academy of Restorative Dentistry. J Prosthet Dent 2011:106: 224-265
71. Brännström M, Linden LÅ, Åstrom A: The hydrodynamics of the dental tubule and of pulp fluid.
A discussion of its significance in relation to dentinal sensitivity. Caries Res. 1967; 1: 310-317.
72. Frankenberger R, Krämer N, Lohbauer U, Nikolaenko S A, Reich S M. Marginal integrity: is
the clinical performance of bonded restorations predictable in vitro? J. Adhes. Dent 2007; 9
(Suppl. 1): 107-116
73. Perdigao J, Geraldeli S, Hodges J S. Total-etch versus self-etch adhesive: effect on
postoperative sensitivity. J Am Dent Assoc. 2003, 134 (12):1621-9
74. Faber K. Biotransformations in organic chemistry – a textbook. Springer-Verlag. Berlin. 1995.
75. Cox C F, O’Neal S J. Biologic and clinical evaluation of Syntac and Variolink sytems for
cohesive pretreatment of hypersensitivity and definitive cementation. Signature Winter 1994.
3-7
76. Monaco C, Ferrari M, , Caldari M, Baldissara P Scotti R. Comparison of 2 bonding systems
and survival of fiber–reinforced composite inlay fixed partial dentures. Int J Prosthodont 2006;
19: 577-585
77. Wilson N H, Cowan A J, Unterbrink G, Wilson M A, Crisp R J. A clinical evaluation of Class II
composites placed using a decoupling technique. J Adhes Dent 2000; 2 (4): 319-329
78. D.F. Williams. The Williams dictionary of Biomaterials 1999
79. MSDS- Shin-Nakamura-Chemical Co.
80. Schmalz G. The biocompatibility of non-amalgam dental filling materials. Eur J Oral Sci
1998;106: 696-706
81. TOXNET. Maleic acid. Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB) A database of the National
Libarary of Medicines. TOXNET system report no. 666. March 5, 2003
82. TOXNET. Acetone. Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB) A database of the National
Libarary of Medicines. TOXNET system report no. 41. June 24, 2005
83. TOXNET. Glutaraldehyde. 2005-06-24
84. Farmer J B, Cox C F, White K , Ramus L. Histological evaluation of a new bonding agent. J
Dent Res 1992; 71: 279
85. Geurtsen W. Biocompatibility of resin-modified filling materials. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 2000;
11: 333-335.
86. Munksgaard EC, Hansen EK, Engen T, Holm U. Self reported occupational dermatological
reactions among Danish dentists. Eur J Oral Sci 1996; 104: 396-402.
 ®
Scientific Documentation Syntac 35 of 35

This documentation contains a survey of internal and external scientific data (“Information”). The
documentation and Information have been prepared exclusively for use in-house by Ivoclar Vivadent
and for external Ivoclar Vivadent partners. They are not intended to be used for any other purpose.
While we believe the Information is current, we have not reviewed all of the Information, and we
cannot and do not guarantee its accuracy, truthfulness, or reliability. We will not be liable for the use of
or reliance on any of the Information, even if we have been advised to the contrary. In particular, use
of the information is at your sole risk. It is provided “as-is”, “as available” and without any explicit or
implicit guarantee or warranty regarding usability or suitability (without limitations) for a particular
purpose.

The Information has been provided without cost to you and in no event will we or anyone associated
with us be liable to you or any other person for any incidental, direct, indirect, consequential, special,
or punitive damages (including, but not limited to, damages for lost data, loss of use, or any cost to
procure substitute information) arising out of your or another’s use of or inability to use the Information
even if we or our agents know of the possibility of such damages.

Ivoclar Vivadent AG
Research and Development
Scientific Services
Bendererstrasse 2
FL - 9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

Contents: Joanna-C. Todd

Issued: February 2012