Ethanol is inefficient to remove endodontic sealer residues of dentinal surface

Endodontic sealer residues on dentinal surface have negative effects on adhesion of adhesives system and/or can cause discoloration of the dental crown. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of 95% ethanol in removal of residues of epoxy-based (AH Plus), methacrylate-based (Epiphany SE) or calcium-based (Sealapex) sealers on dentinal surface. Material and methods: Thirty-two bovine incisor dental crown fragments (0.5 mm x 0.5 mm) were treated with 17% EDTA and 2.5% NaOCl. The specimens were divided into three experimental groups (n = 10): G1 (AH Plus), G2 (Epiphany SE) and G3 (Sealapex). In each group was applied a coating of one endodontic sealer type and were left undisturbed for 5 minutes. After this period, the specimens were cleaned with 95% ethanol. The control group was composed by two specimens that did not receive any sealer or cleaning treatment. The sealer residues persistence after cleaning with 95% ethanol was evaluated by scanning electron microscopy (x500) and a score system was applied. Data obtained were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests (α = 5%). Results: Moderate amount of endodontic sealer residues were observed in all groups, regardless of the endodontic sealer compositions. G1, G2 and G3 presented similar amount of sealer residues on dentinal surface after cleaning with 95% ethanol (p > 0.05). Conclusion: 95% ethanol was inefficiency to remove completely AH Plus, Epiphany SE and Sealapex residues of sealer-contaminated dentin.

Ethanol is inneficient to remove endodontic sealer residues of dentinal surface

Introduction: Endodontic sealer residues on dentinal surface have negative effects on adhesion of adhesives system and/or can cause discoloration of the dental crown. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of 95% ethanol in removal of residues of epoxy-based (AH Plus), methacrylate-based (Epiphany SE) or calcium-based (Sealapex) sealers on dentinal surface. Material and methods: Thirty-two bovine incisor dental crown fragments (0.5 mm x 0.5 mm) were treated with 17% EDTA and 2.5% NaOCl. The specimens were divided into three experimental groups (n = 10): G1 (AH Plus), G2 (Epiphany SE) and G3 (Sealapex). In each group was applied a coating of one endodontic sealer type and were left undisturbed for 5 minutes. After this period, the specimens were cleaned with 95% ethanol. The control group was composed by two specimens that did not receive any sealer or cleaning treatment. The sealer residues persistence after cleaning with 95% ethanol was evaluated by scanning electron microscopy (x500) and a score system was applied. Data obtained were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests (α = 5%). Results: Moderate amount of endodontic sealer residues were observed in all groups, regardless of the endodontic sealer compositions. G1, G2 and G3 presented similar amount of sealer residues on dentinal surface after cleaning with 95% ethanol (p > 0.05). Conclusion: 95% ethanol was inefficiency to remove completely AH Plus, Epiphany SE and Sealapex residues of sealercontaminated dentin.

Repair of composites: Effect of laser and different surface treatments

Objectives: This study investigated the repairs of resin composite restorations after using different surface treatments.Design: Eighty four truncated cones of Filtek Z350 were prepared and thermo-cycled (20,000 cycles). Surfaces were roughened with diamond bur and etched with 37% phosphoric acid. Those cones were divided into 7 groups (N=12): 1) Prime&Bond 2.1; 2) aluminum oxide sandblasting+Prime&Bond 2.1; 3) Er:YAG laser treatment+Prime&Bond 2.1; 4) 9.6% hydrofluoric acid for 2 min-Fsilane coupling agent.; 5) silane coupling agent; 6) auto-polymerized acrylic monomer+Prime&Bond 2.1; 7) Adper Scothbond SE. Teflon device was used to fabricate inverted truncated cones of repair composite over the surface-treated. The bonded specimens were stressed to failure under tension. The data were analyzed with oneway ANOVA and Tukey tests.Results: Mean repair strengths (SD, in MPa) were, Group-2: 18.8a; Group-1: 18.7a; Group-6: 13.4ab; Group-7: 9.5bc; Group-3: 7.5bcd; Group-4: 5.2cd; Group-5: 2.6d.Conclusions: The use of diamond bur and a conventional adhesive and the use of aluminum oxide sandblasting prior to adhesive provided a simple and cost-effective solutions to composite repair. Er:YAG laser, silane alone, 9.6% hydrofluoric acid plus silane or a self-etching adhesive results in inferior composite repair strengths. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Improved electrical transport in lightly Er-doped sol-gel spin-coating SnO2 thin films, processed by photolithography

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

Characterization of calcium phosphate coating produced by biomimetic method

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Hydroxyapatite coating deposited on grade 4 titanium by plasma electrolytic oxidation

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Surface engineering of silica nanoparticles for oral insulin delivery: characterization and cell toxicity studies

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)