Efeitos da aplicação de resina hidrofóbica sobre a resistência de união de adesivos autocondicionantes de frasco único

Introduction: It is known that self-etching adhesive systems can act as semi-permeable membranes. Objective: Evaluate the effects of additional layer of hydrophobic resin on the microtensile bond strength of self-etching one-bottle adhesives. Material and method: Sixty bovine incisors were used in this study. The facial enamel surfaces of the crowns were abraded with silicon carbide paper to expose flat, mid-coronal dentin surfaces. The following adhesives were used: Clearfil Tri S Bond (CTSB), AdheSE One (ADH) and One Coat  7.0 (OC). Each material was tested with and without applying an additional layer of hydrophobic material from the same manufacturer. Z-350 composite resin was inserted in three 1 mm increments. All adhesive restorative procedure was performed under simulated pulpal pressure and the microtensile test was performed immediately after curing the composite resin. Data were submitted to ANOVA and Tukey test (p < 0.05). Result: For all adhesives tested, the worst results were observed in groups which the additional layer of hydrophobic resin was not applied. Conclusion: The application of additional layer of hydrophobic material can improve the adhesion of self-etching all-in-one adhesive systems.

Mechanical properties of components of the bonding interface in different regions of radicular dentin surfaces

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

Responses of Dental Pulp Cells to a Less Invasive Bleaching Technique Applied to Adhesively Restored Teeth

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

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.

Influence of storage times on bond strength of resin cements to root canal

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

Effects of surface treatment, hydration and application method on the bond strength of a silorane adhesive and resin system to dentine

Objectives: To evaluate the effects of surface treatment, surface hydration (SH) and application method (AM) on the tensile bond strength of the Silorane Adhesive System (SAS) to dentine. Methods: Ninety bovine teeth were used. For the control group (n = 10), each dentine surface was treated according to the manufacturer's instructions of the SAS. The remaining teeth were randomly distributed into two groups (n = 40), according to the type of dentine surface treatment (ST) - 37% phosphoric acid or Er:YAG Laser prior to the application of the SAS. Each group was further divided into 2 subgroups (n = 20), according to the SH status: dry (D) or wet (W). Each subgroup was further divided into 2 subgroups (n = 10), according to the application method [AM: Active (AC) mode or Passive (PA) mode]. A coat of resin composite (Filtek P90) was applied on the surface. Artificial ageing was performed with a thermo-mechanical cycling machine. The specimens were sectioned into 1 mm × 1 mm × 10 mm sticks and stressed to failure using a universal testing machine. The remaining teeth in each group were used for Scanning Electron Microscopy to examine the fractured area. Data were subjected to a three-way ANOVA, Tukey's test and Dunnet's test (α = 0.05). Results: The ANOVA showed significant differences for SH and AM, but not for ST. For SH, the results of Tukey's test were (in MPa): D-14.9(±3.8)a, W-17.1(±4.3)b; and for AM: PA-14. 9(±4.2)a, AC-17.1(±3.9) b. Conclusions: Acid etching, when combined with a moist dentine surface and the use of primer agitation, improves the bond strength of the SAS to dentine. Clinical Significance: According to the results of the present in vitro study, modification of the application protocols for the silorane-based adhesive system may improve its clinical performance. © 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Avaliação da eficiência de adesão de um cimento resinoso autocondicionante (self-adhesive) sobre esmalte e dentina: efeito termociclagem e condicionamento dental : estudo in vitro

Pós-graduação em Odontologia Restauradora - ICT

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.

Shortening of primary dentin etching time and its implication on bond strength

Objective. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of shortening the etching time on the bond strength of a conventional and a self-etching primer adhesive system used in primary tooth dentin.Methods. Flat dentin surfaces were obtained from 24 primary molars, randomly assigned to 4 experimental groups. The adhesive systems Single Bond and Clearfil SE Bond were applied in two groups according to the manufacturers' recommendations. In the other two groups, the adhesives were applied after half-time of acid etching, 7 s for Single Bond and 10 s for Clearfil SE Primer. Resin crowns were built up and after 24 h storage in water at 37 &DEG; C, the teeth were sectioned to produce beams with cross-sectional area of approximately 0.49 mm(2). Specimens were tested in tension at 0.5 mm/min until failure. Fractured specimens were analyzed to determine the failure mode.Results. Tensile bond strengths for Single Bond in primary dentin were higher than for Clearfil SE Bond. Shortening of acid etching time improved bond strength only for Single Bond, while no statistically significant difference was observed for Clearfil SE Bond when both etching times were compared.Significance. No detrimental effect on bond strength was observed when the time of acid etching was shortened in 50%. Shortening the time for a procedure in a small child without compromising the quality of the work is a very important finding for the practicing pediatric dentist. © 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

INFLUENCE of DIFFERENT SURFACE CONDITIONING PROTOCOLS on MICROTENSILE BOND STRENGTH of SELF-ADHESIVE RESIN CEMENTS TO DENTIN

Statement of problem. According to manufacturers, bonding with self-adhesive resin cements can be achieved without any pretreatment steps such as etching, priming, or bonding. However, the benefit of saving time with these simplified luting systems may be realized at the expense of compromising the bonding capacity.Purpose. The purpose of this study was to assess whether different dentin conditioning protocols influence the bond performance of self-adhesive resin cements to dentin.Material and methods. Flat dentin surfaces from 48 human molars were divided into 4 groups (n=12): 1) control, no conditioning; 2) H(3)PO(4), etching with 37% H(3)PO(4) for 15 seconds; 3) SEBond, bonding with self-etching primer adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond); and 4) EDTA, etching with 0.1M EDTA for 60 seconds. The specimens from each dentin pre-treatment were bonded using the self-adhesive cements RelyX Unicem, Maxcem or Multilink Sprint (n=4). The resin-cement-dentin specimens were stored in water at 37 degrees C for 7 days, and serially sectioned to produce beam specimens of 1.0 mm(2) cross-sectional area. Microtensile bond strength (mu TBS) testing was performed at 1.0 mm/min. Data (MPa) were analyzed by 2-way ANOVA and Tukey multiple comparisons test (alpha=.05). Fractured specimens were examined with a stereomicroscope (x40) and classified as adhesive, mixed, or cohesive. Additional bonded interfaces were evaluated under a scanning electron microscope (SEM).Results. Cement-dentin mu TBS was affected by the dentin conditioning approach (P <.001). RelyX Unicem attained statistically similar bond strengths to all pre-treated dentin surfaces. H(3)PO(4)-etching prior to the application of Maxcem resulted in bond strength values that were significantly higher than the other groups. The lowest mu TBS were attained when luting Multilink Sprint per manufacturers' recommendations, while H(3)PO(4)-etching produced the highest values followed by Clearfil SE bonding and EDTA. SEM observations disclosed an enhanced potential of the self-adhesive cements to form a hybrid layer when applied following manufacturer's instructions.Conclusions. When evaluated self-adhesive resin cements are used, selectively etching dentin with H(3)PO(4) prior to luting results in the most effective bonding. (J Prosthet Dent 2011;105:227-235)

In Vitro Antibacterial Activity of Adhesive Systems on Streptococcus Mutans

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

Evaluation of Bond Strength of Self-adhesive Cements to Dentin With or Without Application of Adhesive Systems

Purpose: To evaluate the bond strength of indirect restorations to dentin using self-adhesive cements with and without the application of adhesive systems.Material and Methods: Seventy-two bovine incisors were used, in which the buccal surfaces were ground down to expose an area of dentin measuring a minimum of 4 x 4 mm. The indirect resin composite Resilab was used to make 72 blocks, which were cemented onto the dentin surface of the teeth and divided into 4 groups (n = 18): group 1: self-adhesive resin cement BiFix SE, applied according to manufacturer's recommendations; group 2: self-adhesive resin cement RelyX Unicem, used according to manufacturer's recommendations; group 3: etch-and-rinse Solobond M adhesive system + BiFix SE; group 4: etch-and-rinse Single Bond 2 adhesive system + RelyX Unicem. The specimens were sectioned into sticks and subjected to microtensile testing in a universal testing machine (EMIC DL-200MF). Data were subjected to one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (alpha = 5%).Results: The mean values (+/- standard deviation) obtained for the groups were: group 1: 15.28 (+/- 8.17)(a), group 2: 14.60 (+/- 5.21)(a), group 3: 39.20 (+/- 9.98)(c), group 4: 27.59 (+/- 6.57)(b). Different letters indicate significant differences (ANOVA; p = 0.0000).Conclusion: The application of adhesive systems before self-adhesive cements significantly increased the bond strength to dentin. In group 2, RelyX Unicem associated with the adhesive system Single Bond 2 showed significantly lower mean tensile bond strengths than group 3 (BiFix SE associated with the etch-and-rinse Solobond M adhesive system).

Tensile bond strength: Evaluation of four current adhesive systems in abraded enamel and deep dentin

This study aimed to evaluate the tensile bond strength of adhesive systems in abraded enamel and deep dentin of the occlusal surface of forty human molar teeth. Enamel surfaces as well as the rest of the teeth were coated with epoxy resin and regularized and polished with silicon carbide sandpapers. The 40 teeth were randomized into eight groups of five teeth per group. Four groups were assigned to have deep dentin as the dental substrate and the other four had abraded enamel as the substrate for the adhesives to be tested. The adhesives being tested were the total etching Single Bond: SB, the self-etching Clearfil SE bond: CSEB, self-etching One Up Bond F: OUBF and the self-etching Self-Etch Bond: SEB adhesives. The samples (teeth) were restored with composite resin and subjected to a traction assay. The results were statistically analyzed using the ANOVA and TUKEY tests. The total etching SB adhesive system had the greatest bonding strength of all the adhesives tested, on both dental substrates (20.1 MegaPascals (MPa) on abraded enamel and 19.4 MPa on deep dentin). Of the self-etching dental adhesives tested, CSEB had the greatest bonding strength on both substrates (14.6 MPa on abraded enamel and 15.4 MPa on deep dentin). Both OUBF (11.0 MPa for enamel, 13.1 MPa for dentin) and SEB (10.2 MPa for enamel, 12.6 MPa for dentin) showed comparable bonding strengths without any significant differences for either substrate Thus, the total etching SB adhesive system had better bonding strength than the other self-etching adhesives used, regardless of the dental substrate to which the adhesives had been bonded.

Interaction between total-etch and self-etch adhesives and conventional and self-adhesive resin cements

The aim of this study was to compare the bond strength to enamel between resin cements combined with total-etch and self-etch adhesive systems and a self-adhesive cement. Eighty bovine incisors had their buccal surface ground flat exposing a plane area in the enamel. Eighty Artglass resin cylinders measuring 3 mm in diameter and 4 mm in height were fabricated. The teeth were divided into eight groups of 10 teeth each and the resin cylinders were cemented with different adhesive systems and resin cements; G1: RelyX Unicem (self-adhesive cement); G2: H 3PO 4 + Single Bond + RelyX ARC; G3: AdheSE + Variolink II; G4: H 3PO 4 + Excite + Variolink II; G5: Xeno III + Enforce; G6: H 3PO 4 + Prime&Bond NT + Enforce; G7: Biatite Primers 1 and 2 + Bistite II DC; G8: H 3PO 4 + Bistite Primers 1 and 2 + Bistite II DC. After application of the adhesives, the cylinders were cemented according to manufacturer instructions. The specimens were submitted to 2000 thermal cycles at a temperature ranging from 5±5°C to 55±5°C, and shear bond strength was then tested at a variety of 1 mm/min. The data were analyzed by ANOVA and the Tukey's test (á=5%), obtaining a p value of 0.00. The following mean (±standard deviation) bond strength values were observed for each group: G1: 5.14(±0.99)a; G3: 16.23(±4.69)b; G7: 17.82(±3.66)b; G5: 18.48(±2.88)bc; G8: 20.15(±4.12)bc; G4: 22.85(±3.08)cd; G2: 24.96(±2.89)d; G6: 26.07(±1.69)d. Groups followed by the same letters did not differ significantly. For most of the resin cements tested, the application of adhesive systems using acid etching resulted in a higher bond strength when compared to the self-etch adhesive systems and to the self-adhesive cement.

Influence of cutting instruments and adhesive systems on hybrid layer formation.

Influence of cutting instruments and The aim of this study was to analyze the hybrid layer in noncarious dentin prepared by different cutting instruments and restored with composite resin. The cavities were randomly prepared in 40 specimens using a high-speed diamond bur (KG Sorensen 1013) and an ultrasonic tip (CVDentus C22). The cavities were restored with composite resin by varying the adhesive system between the Adper™ Single Bond (2 x 1 system, primer+adhesive) and the Prompt L-Pop™ (3 x 1 system, self-etching). The restorations were hemisected longitudinally and analyzed in the SEM (Scanning electron microscopy) in order to evaluate the hybrid layer and resinous tags characteristics, using scores ranging from 1 to 6. The Pearson test revealed a high correlation coefficient and good significance levels for both intra- and inter-raters values (r=0.90). The data were statistically analyzed using the Mann-Whitney test (P≤0.05). A larger proportion of regular hybrid layers with numerous tags were observed in the dentin prepared using the high-speed diamond burs and restored with a 2 × 1 adhesive system. Alternatively, the 3 × 1 adhesive system promoted the generation of a thin hybrid layer with few tags. After preparation using an ultrasonic tip revealed few or no tags after the preparation and 2 × 1 or 3 × 1 adhesive system application. The high-speed diamond burs produced a dentin surface that was more favorable to restorative material adhesion than the ultrasonic tips, regardless of the adhesive system used.