scholarly journals Effect of an erosive challenge on the enamel-composite resin interface in primary teeth: an in vitro study

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 688
Author(s):  
Jonas Almeida Rodrigues ◽  
Cristiane Meira Assunção ◽  
Rogério Nanini Macanhão ◽  
Leila Canarin Vieira ◽  
Angela Scarparo
Keyword(s):  
Primary Teeth ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Incomplete Removal ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Composite Interface ◽  
Self Etch

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether different adhesive systems (etch-and-rinse or self-etch) render enamel-composite resin interface in primary teeth more susceptible to erosive challenge. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty enamel specimens from caries-free primary incisors were selected and cavities were prepared for restoration. According to adhesive protocols, specimens were divided into groups: G1 (Adper Single Bond 2), G2 (Adper SE Plus), and G3 (35% phosphoric acid + Adper SE Plus). After restorative procedures, half of the surface of enamel and restorative material was protected with nail varnish, thus, only half of the sample was subjected to the erosive challenge (immersion in Coca-Cola®, 3 cycles of 5 minutes, for 5 days). Samples were analysed quantitatively through Knoop microhardness, the indentations were made on enamel-composite interface. Data were submitted to statistical analysis (Student’s t test, two-way ANOVA, p<0.05). RESULTS: It showed that different adhesive systems did not significantly affect the percentage of superficial microhardness change after an erosive challenge (p=0.387). However, although no significant difference was observed, G2 (self-etch system) showed the lowest percentage of superficial microhardness change. CONCLUSION: The use of different adhesive systems did not influence superficial microhardness of enamel-composite interface after an erosive challenge. The incomplete removal of the smear layer, though self-etch systems, suggests a greater ability to withstand the erosive challenge on the enamel-resin interface.

Evaluation of the Bond Strength of Different Pulp Capping Materials to Dental Adhesive Systems: An In Vitro Study

2021 ◽  
pp. 232020682199798
Author(s):  
Sema Yazici Akbiyik ◽  
Elif Pınar Bakir ◽  
S¸eyhmus Bakir
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Pulp Capping ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Fracture Types ◽  
Self Etch

Aim: To evaluate the bond strengths of pulp capping materials (Dycal, ProRoot MTA, Biodentine, TheraCal LC, Calcimol LC, and ApaCal ART) and different adhesive systems (Gluma 2 Bond, Clearfil SE Protect, Gluma Self Etch, Clearfil S 3 Bond Plus, Gluma Bond Universal, Clearfil S 3 Bond Universal). Materials and Methods: Two hundred fifty-two acrylic blocks were prepared in which cylindrical cavities of 4 × 2 mm 3 were formed. Pulp capping materials were placed in the cavities. Different adhesive systems were applied to each pulp capping material group. After applying the composite resin, the shear bond strength (SBS) values of the specimens were determined in the Instron test device. Fracture types were evaluated using a stereomicroscope and a scanning electron microscope. Data were analyzed by Shapiro–Wilk’s and Kruskal–Wallis H test. Results: There is a statistically significant difference between pulp capping materials in terms of SBS values ( P < .05). Dycal’s SBS was found significantly lower than other materials, and the highest bond strength was observed in Calcimol LC material. Although there is no statistically significant difference ( P > .05) between the adhesive agent groups in terms of SBS, Gluma 2 Bond showed the highest bond strength value. Conclusion: In traditional pulp capping materials such as Dycal, MTA, and Biodentine, using a two-step self-etch adhesive system can result in higher bond strength values. In resin-based TheraCal LC,, ApaCal ART, and Calcimol LC materials, it may be recommended to use a two-step etch and rinse adhesive system.

scholarly journals Effect of Tannic Acid on Bond Strength of Etch and Rinse and Self-etch Adhesive Systems in Dentin of Primary Teeth

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-38
Author(s):  
Mojtaba Abdollahi ◽  
Masoumeh Ebrahimi ◽  
Alireza Sarraf Shirazi ◽  
Faraneh Abdolhoseinpour
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Tannic Acid ◽  
Primary Teeth ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
T Test ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Primary Molar ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Self Etch

ABSTRACT Introduction One of the possible mechanisms for the gradual destruction of bond strength in dentin-resin interface, could be due to the demineralized unstable collagen matrix. Use of protease inhibitors, such as tannic acid (TA) could prevent destruction of collagen fibers. The aim of this study was to compare the TA effect on bond strength of etch and rinse and self-etch adhesive systems in the dentin of primary teeth. Materials and methods This in vitro study was done on 40 extracted primary molar teeth. The teeth were sectioned in the mesiodistal direction, and enamel of buccal and lingual surfaces was removed. Samples were randomly divided into four groups: Single bond (SB) + TA, SB, Clearfil SE Bond (CSB) + TA, and CSB. Then, Z250 and Clearfil AP-X composites were cured on the surfaces of SB and CSB groups respectively. After that, all samples were divided into aging and non-aging groups. For 3 months, samples were placed under 1,000 thermal cycles in aging group. Subsequently, the shear bond strengths of all groups were measured by the International testing machine, and failure mode was evaluated by an optical stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed with paired t-test and independent t-test. Results Tannic acid induced a significant reduction in the immediate bond strength of adhesive SB. Meanwhile, TA had no significant effect on shear bond strength of the CSB system. Conclusion Based on our findings, use of TA is not recommended with SB and CSB adhesives on primary teeth. Clinical significance Tannic acid may not be considered in resin restorations of primary teeth. How to cite this article Ebrahimi M, Sarraf Shirazi A, Abdolhoseinpour F, Abdollahi M. Effect of Tannic Acid on Bond Strength of Etch and Rinse and Self-etch Adhesive Systems in Dentin of Primary Teeth. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017;18(1):34-38.

scholarly journals Microshear Bond Strength of Different Adhesive Systems to Dentin

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Valizadeh ◽  
Aida Moradi ◽  
Mansooreh Mirazei ◽  
Hooman Amiri ◽  
Mohammad Javad Kharazifard
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Microshear Bond Strength ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Composite Cylinders

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the microshear bond strength (µSBS) of various adhesive systems to dentin. Materials and Methods: In this in vitro experimental study, 60 sound human third molars were divided into four groups. Dentin discs were prepared of middle-third dentin measuring 4 mm in diameter and 2 mm in thickness. Dentin surfaces were bonded with one of the four types of adhesives: (A) Single Bond (3M ESPE), Scotchbond Universal (3M ESPE) in etch and rinse (B) and self-etch (C) modes and (D) Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray Noritake Dental). After the application of adhesive systems according to the manufacturers’ instructions, composite cylinders (Vit-l-escence) were bonded to dentin surfaces. The μSBS test was performed using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test (α=0.05). Results: The µSBS was the highest in self-etch Scotchbond Universal (15.8±6.08 MPa) followed by Clearfil SE Bond (15.24±4.6 MPa), etch and rinse Scotchbond Universal (11.68±4.07MPa) and Single Bond (11.24±3.74 MPa). A significant difference was only found between Single Bond and etch and rinse Scotchbond Universal groups (P=0.04). Conclusion: Based on the results of this study, application of Scotchbond Universal in self-etch mode provides a reliable bond to dentin.

scholarly journals Microshear Bond Strength of Different Adhesive Systems to Dentin

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Valizadeh ◽  
Aida Moradi ◽  
Mansooreh Mirazei ◽  
Hooman Amiri ◽  
Mohammad Javad Kharazifard
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Microshear Bond Strength ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Composite Cylinders

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the microshear bond strength (µSBS) of various adhesive systems to dentin. Materials and Methods: In this in vitro experimental study, 60 sound human third molars were divided into four groups. Dentin discs were prepared of middle-third dentin measuring 4 mm in diameter and 2 mm in thickness. Dentin surfaces were bonded with one of the four types of adhesives: (A) Single Bond (3M ESPE), Scotchbond Universal (3M ESPE) in etch and rinse (B) and self-etch (C) modes and (D) Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray Noritake Dental). After the application of adhesive systems according to the manufacturers’ instructions, composite cylinders (Vit-l-escence) were bonded to dentin surfaces. The μSBS test was performed using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test (α=0.05). Results: The µSBS was the highest in self-etch Scotchbond Universal (15.8±6.08 MPa) followed by Clearfil SE Bond (15.24±4.6 MPa), etch and rinse Scotchbond Universal (11.68±4.07MPa) and Single Bond (11.24±3.74 MPa). A significant difference was only found between Single Bond and etch and rinse Scotchbond Universal groups (P=0.04). Conclusion: Based on the results of this study, application of Scotchbond Universal in self-etch mode provides a reliable bond to dentin.

scholarly journals Randomized Clinical Trial of Composite Restorations in Primary Teeth: Effect of Adhesive System after Three Years

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Secil Bektaş Donmez ◽  
Melek D. Turgut ◽  
Serdar Uysal ◽  
Pinar Ozdemir ◽  
Meryem Tekcicek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Teeth ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
The Self ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Self Etch

The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical performance of composite restorations placed with different adhesive systems in primary teeth. In 32 patients, 128 composite restorations were placed using a split-mouth design as follows (4 groups/patient): three-step etch-and-rinse (Group 1), two-step etch-and-rinse (Group 2), two-step self-etch (Group 3), and one-step self-etch (Group 4). The restorations were clinically evaluated at baseline and at 6, 18, and 36 months according to the FDI criteria. There was no significant difference between the adhesive systems in retention of the restorations (p>0.05). Over time, there was a statistically significant decrease in marginal adaptation in all groups, whereas surface and marginal staining significantly increased in Groups 3 and 4 (p<0.05). The etch-and-rinse adhesive systems resulted in better marginal adaptation than the self-etch adhesive systems (p<0.05). It was concluded that preetching of the primary enamel might help improve the clinical performance of the self-etch adhesive systems in primary teeth.

Two Adhesive Systems-effect on Adhesion to Tooth Structure

2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (7) ◽  
pp. 2608-2613
Author(s):  
Larisa Simona Deac ◽  
Kamel Earar ◽  
Adela Loredana Colceriu Burtea ◽  
Alexandra Stefania Berghe ◽  
Aurora Antoniac ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Hybrid Layer ◽  
Tooth Structure ◽  
Selective Etch ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Wisdom Teeth ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Group 1

This study evaluates and compares by dye penetration method and SEM photomicrographs the sealing obtained using two different classes of adhesive systems (etch-and-rinse and self-etch with selective etching) with SDR (Dentsply) bulk fill composite. 84 class V cavities were prepared on oral and vestibular face of 42 intact, freshly extracted wisdom teeth. The cavities were randomly divided in two groups and restored: Group 1 with prime &bond one select (Dentsply) and SDR (Dentsply) and Group 2 with prime&bond one Etch&Rinse (Dentsply) and SDR (Dentsply). Prime&bond one Select (Dentsply) is a single component adhesive and can be used in self etch mode, in selective enamel etch mode, or in etch-and-rinse mode. We chosen for this study the selective etch of the enamel mode. Prime&bond one Etch Rinse (Dentsply) is a universal etch-and-rinse one-bottle dental adhesive, designed to be used in two steps. The bulk fill composites are commonly used in modern dentistry due to their properties of low polymerization shrinkage and curing in layer of 4 mm depth, offering the practitioner a fast clinical procedure with good results. The results showed a good sealing at enamel and dentin margins with no statistically significant difference between adhesives, even though the mean of enamel infiltration was smaller for Group1. Furthermore the results show that there were differences between the two groups, for the infiltrations at the enamel, the values of microleakage being arithmetically higher for Group 1, but with no statistically difference between the two groups.SEM images showed for both groups a good adhesion surface with the tooth, but the hybrid layer of the total-etch adhesives is different from the hybrid layer formed by self etch adhesives, in terms of thickness, uniformity. In conclusion both adhesive systems have equivalent sealing qualities and can be successfully used with SDR.

scholarly journals Co-Blend Application Mode of Bulk Fill Composite Resin

Materials ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (16) ◽  
pp. 2504
Author(s):  
Mohammad Al-Nabulsi ◽  
Alaa Daud ◽  
Cynthia Yiu ◽  
Hanan Omar ◽  
Salvatore Sauro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Degree Of Conversion ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Bonding Agents ◽  
Force Microscopy ◽  
Flowable Composite ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Nanoindentation Hardness

Objective: To evaluate the effect of a new application method of bulk-fill flowable composite resin material on bond-strength, nanoleakage, and mechanical properties of dentine bonding agents. Materials and methods: Sound extracted human molars were randomly divided into: manufacturer’s instructions (MI), manual blend 2 mm (MB2), and manual blend 4 mm (MB4). Occlusal enamel was removed and flattened, dentin surfaces were bonded by Prime & Bond universal (Dentsply and Optibond FL, Kerr). For the MI group, adhesives were applied following the manufacturer’s instructions then light-cured. For MB groups, SDR flow+ bulk-fill flowable composite resin was applied in 2- or 4-mm increment then manually rubbed by a micro brush for 15 s with uncured dentine bonding agents and the mixture was light-cured. Composite buildup was fabricated incrementally using Ceram.X One, Dentsply nanohybrid composite resin restorative material. After 24-h water storage, the teeth were sectioned to obtain beams of about 0.8 mm2 for 24-h and thermocycled micro-tensile bond strength at 0.5 mm/min crosshead speed. Degree of conversion was evaluated with micro-Raman spectroscopy. Contraction gaps at 24 h after polymerization were evaluated and atomic force microscopy (AFM) nano-indentation processes were undertaken for measuring the hardness across the interface. Depth of resin penetration was studied using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Bond strength data was expressed using two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test. Nanoindentation hardness was separately analyzed using one-way ANOVA. Results: Factors “storage F = 6.3” and “application F = 30.11” significantly affected the bond strength to dentine. For Optibond FL, no significant difference in nanoleakage was found in MI/MB4 groups between baseline and aged specimens; significant difference in nanoleakage score was observed in MB2 groups. Confocal microscopy analysis showed MB2 Optibond FL and Prime & Bond universal specimens diffusing within the dentine. Contraction gap was significantly reduced in MB2 specimens in both adhesive systems. Degree of conversion (DC) of the MB2 specimens were numerically more compared to MS1 in both adhesive systems. Conclusion: Present study suggests that the new co-blend technique might have a positive effect on bond strengths of etch-and-rinse adhesives to dentine.

scholarly journals Cytotoxicity of Self-Etch Versus Etch-and-Rinse Dentin Adhesives: A Screening Study

Materials ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 452
Author(s):  
Luisa Fröb ◽  
Stefan Rüttermann ◽  
Georgios E. Romanos ◽  
Eva Herrmann ◽  
Susanne Gerhardt-Szép
Keyword(s):  
Quantitative Evaluation ◽  
Human Fibroblasts ◽  
Qualitative Assessment ◽  
Test Material ◽  
Reactivity Index ◽  
Dentin Adhesives ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Self Etch

Six dentin adhesives were tested in vitro regarding their cytotoxicity on human fibroblasts. The adhesives Hybrid Bond, One-up Bond F Plus, AdheSE, Clearfil SE Bond, Optibond Solo Plus and Syntac were eluted with culture medium as single or sequentially applied adhesive part for 24 h. 75 Petri dishes were produced per group. They were evaluated triangulated, comprising the quantitative evaluation (105 ones) to determine “viable”, “dead” and “debris” cells with the use of a cell-counter and the reactivity index was also identified based on the qualitative assessment (420 ones). One-up Bond F Plus, AdheSE and Clearfil SE Bond showed a statistical difference of viable cells to the cell control. For One-up Bond F Plus, statistically, differences compared to hybrid bond and Syntac were also found. All the adhesives except One-up Bond F Plus showed significant differences between single and sequentially applied adhesive part regarding the quantitative evaluation. The test material showed a moderate grade of cytotoxicity. As a result, a statistically significant difference of the cytotoxicity between the self-etch and etch-and-rinse adhesives cannot be demonstrated regarding the qualitative evaluation and the reactivity index, but the differences between sequentially applied and single applied components can be proved.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document