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.

Dentin Bond Strength of Two Recent CAD/CAM-Materials after Storage

Purpose: To investigate the bond strength to dentin of two recent resin-ceramic materials for computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) after 24 hours and after six months storage. Methods and Materials: Ninety cylinders were milled out of Lava Ultimate (3M ESPE) and 90 cylinders out of VITA ENAMIC (VITA Zahnfabrik) (dimension of cylinders: ∅=3.6 mm, h=2 mm). All Lava Ultimate cylinders were sandblasted (aluminium oxide, grain size: 27 μm) and cleaned with ethanol, whereas all VITA ENAMIC cylinders were acid-etched (5% hydrofluoric acid) and cleaned with water-spray. According to the three groups of cements used, the cylinders (n=30/resin-ceramic material) were further pretreated with 1) Scotchbond Universal for RelyX Ultimate (3M ESPE), 2) CLEARFIL Ceramic Primer for PANAVIA F2.0 (Kuraray), or 3) no further pretreatment for Ketac Cem Plus (3M ESPE). The cylinders were then bonded to ground human dentin specimens with 1) Scotchbond Universal and RelyX Ultimate (light-cured), 2) ED PRIMER II and PANAVIA F2.0 (light-cured), or 3) no adhesive system; Ketac Cem Plus (self-cured). Shear bond strength (SBS) was measured after 24 hours for 15 specimens/group and after six months (37°C, 100% humidity) for the other 15 specimens/group. SBS-values were statistically analysed with nonparametric ANOVA followed by exact Wilcoxon rank sum tests (α=0.05). Results: SBS of the two resin-ceramic materials and the three cements after 24 hours and after six months storage are shown in Figure 1. The statistical analysis showed that the duration of storage had a significant effect on SBS of Lava Ultimate for all three cements but had no significant effect on SBS of VITA ENAMIC. For Lava Ultimate SBS-values were (MPa; medians after 24 hours/six months): 13.5/22.5 (p=0.04) for RelyX Ultimate, 11.4/5.8 (p=0.0006) for PANAVIA F2.0, and 0.34/0.09 (p=0.04) for Ketac Cem Plus (Fig. 1). For VITA ENAMIC SBS-values were (MPa; medians after 24 hours/six months): 16.0/21.2 (p=0.10) for RelyX Ultimate, 11.4/14.4 (p=0.06) for PANAVIA F2.0, and 0.43/0.41 (p=0.32) for Ketac Cem Plus (Fig. 1). After 24 hours, there was no significant difference in SBS between Lava Ultimate and VITA ENAMIC for all three cements (p≥0.37). After six months, there was no significant difference in SBS between Lava Ultimate and VITA ENAMIC for RelyX Ultimate and Ketac Cem Plus (p≥0.07) whereas for PANAVIA F2.0, SBS was significantly lower for Lava Ultimate than for VITA ENAMIC (p<0.0001). Conclusion: SBS of Lava Ultimate was more affected by six months storage and by the cement used than was VITA ENAMIC.