Eroded dentin does not jeopardize the bond strength of adhesive restorative materials

This in vitro study evaluated the bond strength of adhesive restorative materials to sound and eroded dentin. Thirty-six bovine incisors were embedded in acrylic resin and ground to obtain flat buccal dentin surfaces. Specimens were randomly allocated in 2 groups: sound dentin (immersion in artificial saliva) and eroded dentin (pH cycling model - 3x / cola drink for 7 days). Specimens were then reassigned according to restorative material: glass ionomer cement (Ketac (TM) Molar Easy Mix), resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Vitremer (TM)) or adhesive system with resin composite (Adper Single Bond 2 + Filtek Z250). Polyethylene tubes with an internal diameter of 0.76 mm were placed over the dentin and filled with the material. The microshear bond test was performed after 24 h of water storage at 37 degrees C. The failure mode was evaluated using a stereomicroscope (400x). Bond strength data were analyzed with two-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc tests (alpha = 0.05). Eroded dentin showed bond strength values similar to those for sound dentin for all materials. The adhesive system showed the highest bond strength values, regardless of the substrate (p < 0.0001). For all groups, the adhesive/mixed failure prevailed. In conclusion, adhesive materials may be used in eroded dentin without jeopardizing the bonding quality. It is preferable to use an etch-and-rinse adhesive system because it shows the highest bond strength values compared with the glass ionomer cements tested.

Micro-mechanical bond strength tests for the assessment of the adhesion of GIC to dentine

Background. The aim of this study is to critically evaluate the bond strength (BS) of Glass-Ionomer Cements (GIC) to dentine with microtensile (mu TBS) and microshear (mu SBS) BS tests by assessing their rankings and failure patterns. Methods. Samples were made on flat dentine surfaces and submitted to mTBS and mSBS. The materials used were: high viscosity GIC (Ketac (TM) Molar Aplicap-KM), resin-modified GIC (Fuji II-FII), nano-filled resin-modified GIC (Ketac (TM) N100-N100) and an etch-and-rinse adhesive system with a composite resin (Adper (TM) Single Bond 2 and Z100 (TM)-Z100). All tests were performed with a Universal Testing Machine (24 h water storage, crosshead speed of 1 mm/min). Debonded surfaces were examined with a stereomicroscope (x40) to identify the failure mode. The data was analyzed with two-way ANOVA (p < 0.05) and LSD test. Results. Means were statistically different regarding the tests and materials, indicating that values for BS obtained for each material depend on the test performed. Failure analysis revealed that failures produced by mTBS were mainly cohesive for KM and FII. mu SBS failures were mainly adhesive or mixed for all materials. For the mTBS, the rank was Z100 > FII > KM = N100, whereas for the mSBS it was Z100 = FII = KM > N100. Conclusion: It may be concluded that distinct micro-mechanical tests present different failure patterns and rankings depending on the material to be considered.

SEM analysis and push-out bond strength of fiberglass posts luted with different cements of glass-ionomer in humid environment: pilot test

The objective of this study was to evaluate the push-out bond strength of fiberglass resin reinforced bonded with five ionomer cements. Also, the interface between cement and dentin was inspected by means of SEM. Fifty human canines were chose after rigorous scrutiny process, endodontically treated and divided randomly into five groups (n = 3) according to cement tested: Group I – Ionoseal (VOCO), Group II – Fugi I (GC), Group III – Fugi II Improved (GC), Group IV – Rely X Luting 2 (3M ESPE), Group V – Ketac Cem (3M ESPE). The post-space was prepared to receive a fiberglass post, which was tried before cementation process. No dentin or post surface pretreatment was carried out. After post bonding, all roots were cross-sectioned to acquire 3 thin-slices (1 mm) from three specific regions of tooth (cervical, medium and apical). A Universal test machine was used to carry out the push-out test with cross-head speed set to 0.5mm/mim. All failed specimens were observed under optical microscope to identify the failure mode. Representative specimens from each group was inspected under SEM. The data were analyzed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Levene’s tests and by two-way ANOVA, and Tukey’s port hoc test at a significance level of 5%. It was compared the images obtained for determination of types of failures more occurred in different levels. SEM inspection displayed that all cements filled the space between post and dentin, however, some imperfections such bubles and voids were noticed in all groups in some degree of extension. The push-out bond strength showed that cement Ketac Cem presented significant higher results when compared to the Ionoseal (P = 0.02). There were no statistical significant differences among other cements.

Push-out bond strengths of different dental cements used to cement glass fiber posts

Statement of problem: Since the introduction of glass fiber posts, irreversible vertical root fractures have become a rare occurrence; however, adhesive failure has become the primary failure mode. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the push-out bond strength of glass fiber posts cemented with different luting agents on 3 segments of the root. Material and methods: Eighty human maxillary canines with similar root lengths were randomly divided into 8 groups (n=10) according to the cement assessed (Rely X luting, Luting and Lining, Ketac Cem, Rely X ARC, Biscem, Duo-link, Rely X U100, and Variolink II). After standardized post space preparation, the root dentin was pretreated for dualpolymerizing resin cements and untreated for the other cements. The mixed luting cement paste was inserted into post spaces with a spiral file and applied to the post surface that was seated into the canal. After 7 days, the teeth were sectioned perpendicular to their long axis into 1-mm-thick sections. The push-out test was performed at a speed of 0.5 mm/min until extrusion of the post occurred. The results were evaluated by 2-way ANOVA and the all pairwise multiple comparison procedures (Tukey test) (?=.05). Results: ANOVA showed that the type of interaction between cement and root location significantly influenced the push-out strength (P<.05). The highest push-out strength results with root location were obtained with Luting and Lining (S3) (19.5 ±4.9 MPa), Ketac Cem (S2) (18.6 ±5.5 MPa), and Luting and Lining (S1) (18.0 ±7.6 MPa). The lowest mean values were recorded with Variolink II (S1) (4.6 ±4.0 MPa), Variolink II (S2) (1.6 ±1.5 MPa), and Rely X ARC (S3) (0.9 ±1.1 MPa). Conclusions: Self-adhesive cements and glass ionomer cements showed significantly higher values compared to dual-polymerizing resin cements. In all root segments, dual-polymerizing resin cements provided significantly lower bond strength. Significant differences among root segments were found only for Duo-link cement.