Push-out bond strength of CAD/CAM-ceramic luted to dentin with self-adhesive resin cements

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the initial and the artificially aged push-out bond strength between ceramic and dentin produced by one of five resin cements. METHODS: Two-hundred direct ceramic restorations (IPS Empress CAD) were luted to standardized Class I cavities in extracted human molars using one of four self-adhesive cements (SpeedCEM, RelyX Unicem Aplicap, SmartCem2 and iCEM) or a reference etch-and-rinse resin cement (Syntac/Variolink II) (n=40/cement). Push-out bond strength (PBS) was measured (1) after 24h water storage (non-aged group; n=20/cement) or (2) after artificial ageing with 5000 thermal cycles followed by 6 months humid storage (aged group; n=20/cement). Nonparametrical ANOVA and pairwise Wilcoxon rank-sum tests with Bonferroni-Holm adjustment were applied for statistical analysis. The significance level was set at alpha=0.05. In addition, failure mode and fracture pattern were analyzed by stereomicroscope and scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS: Whereas no statistically significant effect of storage condition was found (p=0.441), there was a significant effect of resin cement (p<0.0001): RelyX Unicem showed significantly higher PBS than the other cements. Syntac/Variolink II showed significantly higher PBS than SmartCEM2 (p<0.001). No significant differences were found between SpeedCEM, SmartCem2, and iCEM. The predominant failure mode was adhesive failure of cements at the dentin interface except for RelyX Unicem which in most cases showed cohesive failure in ceramic. SIGNIFICANCE: The resin cements showed marked differences in push-out bond strength when used for luting ceramic restorations to dentin. Variolink II with the etch-and-rinse adhesive Syntac did not perform better than three of the four self-adhesive resin cements tested.

Clinical results with two different methods of root-end preparation and filling in apical surgery: mineral trioxide aggregate and adhesive resin composite

INTRODUCTION: The aim of apical surgery is to hermetically seal the root canal system after root-end resection, thereby enabling periradicular healing. The objective of this nonrandomized prospective clinical study was to report results of 2 different root-end preparation and filling methods, ie, mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and an adhesive resin composite (Retroplast). METHODS: The study included 353 consecutive cases with endodontic lesions limited to the periapical area. Root-end cavities were prepared with sonic microtips and filled with MTA (n = 178), or alternatively, a shallow concavity was prepared in the cut root face, with subsequent placement of an adhesive resin composite (Retroplast) (n = 175). Patients were recalled after 1 year. Cases were defined as healed when no clinical signs or symptoms were present and radiographs demonstrated complete or incomplete (scar tissue) healing of previous radiolucencies. RESULTS: The overall rate of healed cases was 85.5%. MTA-treated teeth demonstrated a significantly (P = .003) higher rate of healed cases (91.3%) compared with Retroplast-treated teeth (79.5%). Within the MTA group, 89.5%-100% of cases were classified as healed, depending on the type of treated tooth. In contrast, more variable rates ranging from 66.7%-100% were found in the Retroplast group. In particular, mandibular premolars and molars demonstrated considerably lower rates of healed cases when treated with Retroplast. CONCLUSIONS: MTA can be recommended for root-end filling in apical surgery, irrespective of the type of treated tooth. Retroplast should be used with caution for root-end sealing in apical surgery of mandibular premolars and molars.

Relevance of In-vitro Tests of Adhesive and Composite Dental Materials. A Review in 3 Parts. Part 2: Non-standardized tests of composite materials

Summary The first part of this review examined ISO approval requirements and in vitro testing. In the second part, non-standardized test methods for composite materials are presented and discussed. Physical tests are primarily described. Analyses of surface gloss and alterations, as well as aging simulations of dental materials are presented. Again, the importance of laboratory tests in determining clinical outcomes is evaluated. Differences in the measurement protocols of the various testing institutes and how these differences can in?uence the results are also discussed. Because there is no standardization of test protocols, the values determined by different institutes cannot be directly compared. However, the ranking of the tested materials should be the same if a valid protocol is applied by different institutes. The modulus of elasticity, the expansion after water sorption, and the polishability of the material are all clinically relevant, whereas factors measured by other test protocols may have no clinical correlation. The handling properties of the materials are highly dependent on operators' preferences. Therefore, no standard values can be given.

Relevance of in vitro tests of adhesive and composite dental materials, a review in 3 parts. Part 1: Approval requirements and standardized testing of composite materials according to ISO specifications

The first part of this three-part review on the relevance of laboratory testing of composites and adhesives deals with approval requirements for composite materials. We compare the in vivo and in vitro literature data and discuss the relevance of in vitro analyses. The standardized ISO protocols are presented, with a focus on the evaluation of physical parameters. These tests all have a standardized protocol that describes the entire test set-up. The tests analyse flexural strength, depth of cure, susceptibility to ambient light, color stability, water sorption and solubility, and radiopacity. Some tests have a clinical correlation. A high flexural strength, for instance, decreases the risk of fractures of the marginal ridge in posterior restorations and incisal edge build-ups of restored anterior teeth. Other tests do not have a clinical correlation or the threshold values are too low, which results in an approval of materials that show inferior clinical properties (e.g., radiopacity). It is advantageous to know the test set-ups and the ideal threshold values to correctly interpret the material data. Overall, however, laboratory assessment alone cannot ensure the clinical success of a product.

Release of bisphenol-A from a light-cured adhesive bonded to lingual fixed retainers

Our aim was to quantitatively determine the bisphenol-A (BPA) released from a light-cured orthodontic adhesive used to bond lingual fixed retainers.

Applicability of DNA Analysis on Adhesive Tape in Forensic Casework

Adhesive tape is commonly used in crimes and is often the subject of forensic evaluation. DNA analysis of adhesive tape can provide DNA profiles of suspects. The object of this study was to evaluate the applicability of DNA analysis on adhesive tape samples in forensic casework. We retrospectively reviewed all cases involving adhesive tape or similar items received by our institute for DNA analysis during the past 11 years. From 100 forensic cases reviewed, 150 adhesive tape samples were examined. A total of 98 DNA profiles were obtained from these samples. Sixty-two of the profiles provided feasible case-relevant information. In conclusion, DNA profiling of adhesive tape samples can be useful in a variety of forensic cases.

Objective hypoesthesia and pain after transabdominal preperitoneal hernioplasty: a prospective, randomized study comparing tissue adhesive versus spiral tacks

Irritation of inguinal nerves with laparoscopic hernia repair may cause chronic neuralgia and hypoesthesia. Hypoesthesia in particular is generally not assessed objectively. We objectively investigated hypoesthesia and chronic pain after transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair (TAPP) with titanium spiral tacks (STs) compared with tissue adhesive (TA) for mesh fixation.

Micromorphology and adhesive performance of Er:YAG laser-treated dentin of primary teeth

This study evaluated (1) the micromorphology by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and (2) the adhesive performance by microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of diamond bur-treated dentin compared to Er:YAG laser-treated dentin of human primary teeth. (1) For qualitative SEM evaluation, dentin of 18 second primary molars (n = 3/method) was treated with either diamond bur as a control (group 1a: 40 μm diamond bur only (clinical situation); group 1b: grinding + 40 μm diamond bur) or with Er:YAG laser (group 2a (clinical situation, manufacturer's settings): 200 mJ/25 Hz (5 W) + 100 mJ/35 Hz (3.5 W) laser only; group 2b (experimental setting "high"): grinding + 400 mJ/20 Hz (8 W); group 2c (manufacturer's setting "finishing"): grinding + 100 mJ/35 Hz (3.5 W); group 2d (experimental setting "low"): grinding + 50 mJ/35 Hz (1.75 W)). (2) For evaluation of adhesive performance, 64 second primary molars were divided into four groups and treated as described for group 1b and groups 2b/c/d (n = 16/method), and μTBS of Clearfil SE/Clearfil Majesty Esthetic to dentin was measured. The SEM micrographs were qualitatively analyzed. The μTBS values were compared with a Kruskal-Wallis test. The significance level was set at α = 0.05. SEM micrographs showed the typical micromorphologies with a smear layer for the diamond bur groups and open dentin tubules for all laser-treated groups. However, in group 2d, the laser beam had insufficiently irradiated the dentin area, rendering the underlying ground surface partly visible. There were no statistically significant differences between μTBS values of the four groups (p = 0.394). This suggests that Er:YAG laser treatment of dentin of primary molars provides bond strengths similar to those obtained following diamond bur treatment.

Enamel loss and adhesive remnants following bracket removal and various clean-up procedures in vitro

This study evaluated the enamel loss and composite remnants after debonding and clean-up. The tested null hypothesis is that there are no differences between different polishing systems regarding removing composite remnants without damaging the tooth surface. Brackets were bonded to 75 extracted human molars and removed after a storage period of 100 hours. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was evaluated. The clean-up was carried out with five different procedures: 1. carbide bur; 2. carbide bur and Brownie and Greenie silicone polishers; 3. carbide bur and Astropol polishers; 4. carbide bur and Renew polishers; and 5. carbide bur, Brownie, Greenie and PoGo polishers. Silicone impressions were made at baseline (T0) and after debonding (T1) and polishing (T2) to produce plaster replicas. The replicas were analysed with a three-dimensional laser scanner and measured with analytical software. Statistical analysis was performed with the Kruskal-Wallis test and pairwise Wilcoxon tests with Bonferroni-Holm adjustment (α = 0.05). Enamel breakouts after debonding were detectable in 27 per cent of all cases, with a mean volume loss of 0.02 mm(3) (±0.03 mm(3)) and depth of 44.9 μm (±48.3 μm). The overall ARI scores was 3 with a few scores of 1 and 2. The composite remnants after debonding had a mean volume of 2.48 mm(3) (±0.92 mm(3)). Mean volume loss due to polishing was 0.05 mm(3) (±0.26 mm(3)) and the composite remnants had a mean volume of 0.22 mm(3) (±0.32 mm(3)). There were no statistically significant differences in volumetric changes after polishing (P = 0.054) between the different clean-up methods. However, sufficient clean-up without enamel loss was difficult to achieve.

Effect of tin-chloride pretreatment on bond strength of two adhesive systems to dentin

OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect on resin composite-to-dentin bond strength of incorporation of an acidic tin-chloride pretreatment in two adhesive systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Human molars were ground to expose mid-coronal dentin. For microtensile bond strength (μTBS) testing, dentin was treated with Optibond FL or Clearfil SE according to one of six protocols (n = 22/group). Group 1: Phosphoric acid etching, Optibond FL Prime, Optibond FL Adhesive (manufacturer's instructions; control); Group 2: Tin-chloride pretreatment, Optibond FL Prime, Optibond FL Adhesive; Group 3: Phosphoric acid etching, tin-chloride pretreatment, Optibond FL Prime, Optibond FL Adhesive; Group 4: Clearfil SE Primer, Clearfil SE Bond (manufacturer's instructions; control); Group 5: Phosphoric acid etching, Clearfil SE Primer, Clearfil SE Bond; and Group 6: Tin-chloride pretreatment, Clearfil SE Primer, Clearfil SE Bond. The molars were then built up with resin composite (Clearfil Majesty Esthetic). After storage (1 week, 100  % humidity, 37 °C) the μTBS was measured and failure mode was determined. Additionally, pretreated dentin surfaces were evaluated using SEM and EDX. The μTBS results were analyzed statistically by a Welch Two Sample t-test and a Kruskal-Wallis test followed by exact Wilcoxon rank sum tests with Bonferroni-Holm adjustment for multiple testing (α = 0.05). RESULTS: When Optibond FL was used, partial or total replacement of phosphoric acid with tin-chloride decreased μTBS significantly. In contrast, when Clearfil SE was used, inclusion of a tin-chloride pretreatment in the adhesive procedure increased μTBS significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Tin-chloride pretreatment had a beneficial influence on the bond promoting capacity of the MDP-containing adhesive system Clearfil SE.

Bisphenol-A and residual monomer leaching from orthodontic adhesive resins and polycarbonate brackets: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION The objective of this systematic review was to assess the short- and long-term release of components of orthodontic adhesives and polycarbonate brackets in the oral environment. METHODS Electronic database searches of published and unpublished literature were performed. The following electronic databases with no language and publication date restrictions were searched: MEDLINE (via Ovid and PubMed), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, and CENTRAL. Unpublished literature was searched on ClinicalTrials.gov, the National Research Register, and Pro-Quest Dissertation Abstracts and Thesis database. The reference lists of all eligible studies were checked for additional studies. Two review authors performed data extraction independently and in duplicate using data collection forms. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or the involvement of an arbiter. RESULTS No randomized controlled trial was identified. In the absence of randomized controlled trials, observational studies were included. Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. All were observational studies conducted in vivo or in vitro. The bisphenol-A release from orthodontic bonding resins was found to be between 0.85 and 20.88 ng per milliliter in vivo, and from traces to 65.67 ppm in vitro. Polycarbonate brackets released amounts of 22.24 μg per gram in ethanol solution and 697 μg per gram after 40 months in water. Bis-GMA and TEGDMA leaching in vitro reached levels of 64 and 174 mg per 10 μL, respectively. Because of the heterogeneity in methodologies and reporting, only qualitative synthesis was performed. CONCLUSIONS The available evidence on this topic derived from observational in-vivo and in-vitro studies that represent a moderate level of evidence. The variety of setups and the different units allied to the diversity of reporting among studies did not allow calculation of pooled estimates.

Does tin pre-treatment enhance the bond strength of adhesive systems to enamel?

OBJECTIVES The study investigated the modification of composite-to-enamel bond strength by pre-treatment of enamel with a concentrated, acidic SnCl2-solution. METHODS Six groups of flat human enamel specimens (n=44 per group) were treated as follows: OB-H: H3PO4 etching, Optibond FL application (primer+adhesive; manufacturer's instructions); OB-S: SnCl2 pre-treatment, Optibond FL application (primer+adhesive); OB-HS: H3PO4 etching+SnCl2 pre-treatment, Optibond FL application (primer+adhesive); CF-N: Clearfil SE application (primer+bond; manufacturer's instructions); CF-H: H3PO4 etching, Clearfil SE application (primer+bond); CF-S: SnCl2 pre-treatment, Clearfil SE application (primer+bond). Enamel specimens were then built up with resin composite (Clearfil Majesty Esthetic) and stored (100% humidity, 37 °C, 1 week). μTBS-measurement and failure mode analysis of one-half of the specimens were performed immediately after storage, while the other half was analysed after a thermocycling procedure (8500 cycles; 5 °C and 55 °C; dwell time 30s). Additional specimens were prepared for SEM- and EDX-analysis. RESULTS Highest values were measured for OB-H before and after thermocycling, lowest values for CF-N. Compared to OB-H treatment, OB-S treatment reduced μTBS before/after thermocycling by 23%/28% and OB-HS treatment by 8%/24% (except for OB-SH before (n.s.), all p≤0.001 compared to OB-H). In the Clearfil SE treated groups pre-treatment increased μTBS significantly compared to CF-N (before/after: CF-H: +46%/+70%; CF-S: +51%/42%; all p≤0.001). CONCLUSION Pre-treatment with H3PO4 or SnCl2 markedly increased the μTBS of Clearfil SE to enamel. However, thermocycling partly reduced the gain in μTBS obtained by SnCl2 pre-treatment. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE The application of an acidic and highly concentrated SnCl2 solution is a good option to increase the μTBS between enamel and a resin composite mediated by an adhesive system containing the multifunctional monomer MDP.