Salivary Contamination and Decontamination: Bond Strength to Dentin of Primary and Permanent Teeth

Aim: To evaluate the effects of salivary contamination and decontamination on bond strength of two one-step adhesives to primary and permanent dentin. Methods: Dentin specimens were prepared from extracted primary and permanent molars (210 of each) and were distributed to seven groups (n=15/group/molar type) for each adhesive (Xeno V+ and Scotchbond Universal): no saliva contamination (control); saliva contamination before or after light-curing of the adhesives followed either by air-drying, by rinsing with water and air-drying, or by rinsing with water, air-drying and reapplication of the adhesives. Resin composite was applied and the specimens were stored for 24h (37°C, 100% humidity). Then, shear bond strength (SBS) was measured and data analyzed with nonparametric ANOVA and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Results: Saliva contamination reduced SBS of Xeno V+, the reduction being more pronounced when contamination occurred before light-curing than after. In both situations, decontamination involving reapplication of the adhesive restored SBS. Saliva contamination had no significant effect on Scotchbond Universal. There were no differences in SBS between primary and permanent teeth. Conclusion: Saliva contamination reduced SBS of Xeno V+, but not of Scotchbond Universal. SBS was restored when contaminated dentin was rinsed with water and air-dried followed by reapplication of the adhesive.

Effect of Salivary Contamination and Decontamination on Bond Strength of Two One-Step Self-Etching Adhesives to Dentin of Primary and Permanent Teeth

Purpose: To evaluate the effects of human saliva contamination and two decontamination procedures at different stages of the bonding procedure on the bond strength of two one-step self-etching adhesives to primary and permanent dentin. Materials and Methods: Extracted human primary and permanent molars (210 of each) were ground to mid-coronal dentin. The dentin specimens were randomly divided into 7 groups (n = 15/group/molar type) for each adhesive (Xeno V+ and Scotchbond Universal): no saliva contamination (control); saliva contamination before or after light curing of the adhesives followed by air drying, rinsing with water spray/air drying, or by rinsing with water spray/air drying/reapplication of the adhesives. Resin composite (Filtek Z250) was applied on the treated dentin surfaces. The specimens were stored at 37°C and 100% humidity for 24 h. After storage, shear bond strength (SBS) was measured and data analyzed with nonparametric ANOVA followed by exact Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Results: Xeno V+ generated significantly higher SBS than Scotchbond Universal when no saliva contamination occurred. Saliva contamination reduced SBS of Xeno V+, with the reduction being more pronounced when contamination occurred before light curing than after. In both situations, decontamination involving reapplication of the adhesive restored SBS. Saliva contamination had no significant effect on Scotchbond Universal. There were no differences in SBS between primary and permanent teeth. Conclusion: Rinsing with water and air drying followed by reapplication of the adhesive restored bond strength to saliva-contaminated dentin.

Resistive-Polymer Versus Forced-Air Warming: Comparable Efficacy in Orthopedic Patients

BACKGROUND: Several adverse consequences are caused by mild perioperative hypothermia. Maintaining normothermia with patient warming systems, today mostly with forced air (FA), has thus become a standard procedure during anesthesia. Recently, a polymer-based resistive patient warming system was developed. We compared the efficacy of a widely distributed FA system with the resistive-polymer (RP) system in a prospective, randomized clinical study. METHODS: Eighty patients scheduled for orthopedic surgery were randomized to either FA warming (Bair Hugger warming blanket #522 and blower #750, Arizant, Eden Prairie, MN) or RP warming (Hot Dog Multi-Position Blanket and Hot Dog controller, Augustine Biomedical, Eden Prairie, MN). Core temperature, skin temperature (head, upper and lower arm, chest, abdomen, back, thigh, and calf), and room temperature (general and near the patient) were recorded continuously. RESULTS: After an initial decrease, core temperatures increased in both groups at comparable rates (FA: 0.33 degrees C/h +/- 0.34 degrees C/h; RP: 0.29 degrees C/h +/- 0.35 degrees C/h; P = 0.6). There was also no difference in the course of mean skin and mean body (core) temperature. FA warming increased the environment close to the patient (the workplace of anesthesiologists and surgeons) more than RP warming (24.4 degrees C +/- 5.2 degrees C for FA vs 22.6 degrees C +/- 1.9 degrees C for RP at 30 minutes; P(AUC) <0.01). CONCLUSION: RP warming performed as efficiently as FA warming in patients undergoing orthopedic surgery.