Shear Bond Strength and Ultrastructural Interface Analysis of Different Adhesive Systems to Bleached Dentin

Background: It remains unclear as to whether or not dental bleaching affects the bond strength of dentin/resin restoration. Purpose: To evaluated the bond strength of adhesive systems to dentin submitted to bleaching with 38% hydrogen peroxide (HP) activated by LED-laser and to assess the adhesive/dentin interfaces by means of SEM. Study design: Sixty fragments of dentin (25 mm(2)) were included and divided into two groups: bleached and unbleached. HP was applied for 20 s and photoactivated for 45 s. Groups were subdivided according to the adhesive systems (n = 10): (1) two-steps conventional system (Adper Single Bond), (2) two-steps self-etching system (Clearfil standard error (SE) Bond), and (3) one-step self-etching system (Prompt L-Pop). The specimens received the Z250 resin and, after 24 h, were submitted to the bond strength test. Additional 30 dentin fragments (n = 5) received the same surface treatments and were prepared for SEM. Data were analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey`s test (alpha = 0.05). Results: There was significant strength reduction in bleached group when compared to unbleached group (P < 0.05). Higher bond strength was observed for Prompt. Single Bond and Clearfil presented the smallest values when used in bleached dentin. SEM analysis of the unbleached specimens revealed long tags and uniform hybrid layer for all adhesives. In bleached dentin, Single Bond provided open tubules and with few tags, Clearfil determined the absence of tags and hybrid layer, and Prompt promoted a regular hybrid layer with some tags. Conclusions: Prompt promoted higher shear bond strength, regardless of the bleaching treatment and allowed the formation of a regular and fine hybrid layer with less deep tags, when compared to Single Bond and Clearfil. Microsc. Res. Tech. 74:244-250, 2011. (C) 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

An in vitro study of non-axial forces upon the retention of an O-ring attachment

Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate the retention force of an O-ring attachment system in different inclinations to the ideal path of insertion, using devices to compensate angulations. Material and methods Two implants were inserted into an aluminum base, and ball attachments were screwed to implants. Cylinders with O-rings were placed on ball attachments and connected to the test device using positioners to compensate implant angulations (0 degrees, 7 degrees, and 14 degrees). Plexiglass bases were used to simulate implant angulations. The base and the test device were positioned in a testing apparatus, which simulated insertion/removal of an overdenture. A total of 2900 cycles, simulating 2 years of overdenture use, were performed and 36 O-rings were tested. The force required for each cycle was recorded with computer software. Longitudinal sections of ball attachment-positioner-cylinder with O-rings of each angulation were obtained to analyze the relationship among them, and O-ring sections tested in each angulation were compared with an unused counterpart. A mixed linear model was used to analyze the data, and the comparison was performed by orthogonal contrasts (alpha=0.05). Results At 0 degrees, the retention force decreased significantly over time, and the retention force was significantly different in all comparisons, except from 12 to 18 months. When the implants were positioned at 7 degrees, the retention force was statistically different at 0 and 24 months. At 14 degrees, significant differences were found from 6 and 12 to 24 months. Conclusions Within the limitations of this study, it was concluded that O-rings for implant/attachments perpendicular to the occlusal plane were adequately retentive over the first year and that the retentive capacity of O-ring was affected by implant inclinations despite the proposed positioners. To cite this article:Rodrigues RCS, Faria ACL, Macedo AP, Sartori IAM, de Mattos MGC, Ribeiro RF. An in vitro study of non-axial forces upon the retention of an O-ring attachment.Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 20, 2009; 1314-1319.doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01742.x.