Temporary zinc oxide-eugenol cement: eugenol quantity in dentin and bond strength of resin composite

Uptake of eugenol from eugenol-containing temporary materials may reduce the adhesion of subsequent resin-based restorations. This study investigated the effect of duration of exposure to zinc oxide–eugenol (ZOE) cement on the quantity of eugenol retained in dentin and on the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of the resin composite. The ZOE cement (IRM Caps) was applied onto the dentin of human molars (21 per group) for 1, 7, or 28 d. One half of each molar was used to determine the quantity of eugenol (by spectrofluorimetry) and the other half was used for μTBS testing. The ZOE-exposed dentin was treated with either OptiBond FL using phosphoric acid (H3PO4) or with Gluma Classic using ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) conditioning. One group without conditioning (for eugenol quantity) and two groups not exposed to ZOE (for eugenol quantity and μTBS testing) served as controls. The quantity of eugenol ranged between 0.33 and 2.9 nmol mg−1 of dentin (median values). No effect of the duration of exposure to ZOE was found. Conditioning with H3PO4 or EDTA significantly reduced the quantity of eugenol in dentin. Nevertheless, for OptiBond FL, exposure to ZOE significantly decreased the μTBS, regardless of the duration of exposure. For Gluma Classic, the μTBS decreased after exposure to ZOE for 7 and 28 d. OptiBond FL yielded a significantly higher μTBS than did Gluma Classic. Thus, ZOE should be avoided in cavities later to be restored with resin-based materials.

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.