Pressable Feldspathic Inlays in Premolars: Effect of Cementation Strategy and Mechanical Cycling on the Adhesive Bond Between Dentin and Restoration

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

Effect of Sodium Ascorbate on Dentin Bonding After Two Bleaching Techniques

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

Effectiveness and biological compatibility of different generations of dentin adhesives

Besides possessing good mechanical properties, dental materials should present a good biological behavior and should not injure the involved tissues. Bond strength and biocompatibility are both highly significant properties of dentin adhesives. For that matter, these properties of four generations of adhesive systems (Multi-Purpose/Single Bond/SE Plus/Easy Bond) were evaluated.Eighty bovine teeth had their dentin exposed (500- and 200-mu m thickness). Adhesive was applied on the dentin layer of each specimen. Following that, the microshearing test was performed for all samples. A dentin barrier test was used for the cytotoxicity evaluation. Cell cultures (SV3NeoB) were collected from testing materials by means of 200- or 500-mu m-thick dentin slices and placed in a cell culture perfusion chamber. Cell viability was measured 24 h post-exposition by means of a photometrical test (MTT test).The best bonding performance was shown by the single-step adhesive Easy Bond (21 MPa, 200 mu m; 27 MPa, 500 mu m) followed by Single Bond (15.6 MPa, 200 mu m; 23.4 MPa, 500 mu m), SE Plus (18.2 MPa, 200 mu m; 20 MPa, 500 mu m), and Multi-Purpose (15.2 MPa, 200 mu m; 17.9 MPa, 500 mu m). Regarding the cytotoxicity, Multi-Purpose slightly reduced the cell viability to 92 % (200 mu m)/93 % (500 mu m). Single Bond was reasonably cytotoxic, reducing cell viability to 71 % (200 mu m)/64 % (500 mu m). The self-etching adhesive Scotchbond SE decreased cell viability to 85 % (200 mu m)/71 % (500 mu m). Conversely, Easy Bond did not reduce cell viability in this test, regardless of the dentin thickness.Results showed that the one-step system had the best bond strength performance and was the least toxic to pulp cells. In multiple-step systems, a correct bonding technique must be done, and a pulp capping strategy is necessary for achieving good performance in both properties.The study showed a promising system (one-step self-etching), referring to it as a good alternative for specific cases, mainly due to its technical simplicity and good biological responses.

Er:YAG-Laser and Sodium Hypochlorite Influence on Bond to Dentin

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

Effect of simulated intraoral erosion and/or abrasion effects on etch-and-rinse bonding to enamel

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

Exposed Collagen In Resin Bonds to Caries-affected Dentin After Dentin Treatment with Aqueous and Alcoholic Chlorhexidine Solutions

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Efficacy of Surface Treatments on the Bond Strength of Resin Cements to Two Brands of Zirconia Ceramic

Purpose: To compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of two cements to two Y-TZP ceramics subjected to different surface treatments.Materials and Methods: Zirconia specimens were made from Lava (n = 36) and IPS e.max ZirCAD (n = 36), and their surfaces were treated as follows: no treatment (control), silica coating with 30-mu m silica-modified alumina (Al2O3) particles (CoJet Sand), or coating with liners Lava Ceram for Lava and Intensive ZirLiner for IPS e.max ZirCAD. Composite resin cylinders were bonded to zirconia with Panavia F or RelyX Unicem resin cements. All specimens were thermocycled (6000 cycles at 5 degrees C/55 degrees C) and subjected to SBS testing. Data were analyzed by post-hoc test Tamhane T2 and Scheffe tests (alpha = 0.05). Failure mode was analyzed by stereomicroscope and SEM.Results: With both zirconia brands, CoJet Sand showed significantly higher SBS values than control groups only when used with RelyX Unicem (p = 0.0001). Surface treatment with liners gave higher SBS than control groups with both ceramic brands and cements (p < 0.001). With both zirconia brands, the highest SBS values were obtained with the CoJet and RelyX Unicem combination (> 13.47 MPa). Panavia F cement showed significantly better results when coupled with liner surface treatment rather than with CoJet (p = 0.0001, SBS > 12.23 MPa). In untreated controls, Panavia F showed higher bond strength than RelyX Unicem; the difference was significant (p = 0.016) in IPS e.max ZirCAD. The nontreated specimens and those treated with CoJet Sand exhibited a high percentage of adhesive and mixed A (primarily adhesive) failures, while the specimens treated with liners presented an increase in mixed A and mixed C (primarily cohesive) failures as well as some cohesive failure in the bulk of Lava Ceram for both cements.Conclusion: CoJet Sand and liner application effectively improved the SBS between zirconia and luting cements. This study suggests that different interactions between surface treatments and luting cements yield different SBS: in clinical practice, these interactions should be considered when combining luting cements with surface treatments in order to obtain the maximum bond strength to zirconia restorations.

Influence of Adhesive Restorations on Diffusion of H2O2 Released from a Bleaching Agent and Its Toxic Effects on Pulp Cells

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

Evaluation of bond strength and thickness of adhesive layer according to the techniques of applying adhesives in composite resin restorations

Adhesive restorations have increasingly been used in dentistry, and the adhesive system application technique may determine the success of the restorative procedure. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of the application technique of two adhesive systems (Clearfil SE Bond and Adper Scotchbond MultiPurpose) on the bond strength and adhesive layer of composite resin restorations. Eight human third molars were selected and prepared with Class I occlusal cavities. The teeth were restored with composite using various application techniques for both adhesives, according to the following groups (n = 10): group 1 (control), systems were applied and adhesive was immediately light activated for 20 seconds without removing excesses; group 2, excess adhesive was removed with a gentle jet of air for 5 seconds; group 3, excess was removed with a dry microbrush-type device; and group 4, a gentle jet of air was applied after the microbrush and then light activation was performed. After this, the teeth were submitted to microtensile testing. For the two systems tested, no statistical differences were observed between groups 1 and 2. Groups 3 and 4 presented higher bond strength values compared with the other studied groups, allowing the conclusion that excess adhesive removal with a dry micro-brush could improve bond strength in composite restorations. Predominance of adhesive fracture and thicker adhesive layer were observed via scanning electron microscopy (SEM) in groups 1 and 2. For groups 3 and 4, a mixed failure pattern and thinner adhesive layer were verified. Clinicians should be aware that excess adhesive may negatively affect bond strength, whereas a thin, uniform adhesive layer appears to be favorable. (Quintessence Int 2013;44:9-15)

Bond strength of composite to dentin: effect of acid etching and laser irradiation through an uncured self-etch adhesive system

This study evaluated the effect on micro-tensile bond strength (mu-TBS) of laser irradiation of etched/unetched dentin through an uncured self-etching adhesive. Dentinal surfaces were treated with Clearfil SE Bond Adhesive (CSE) either according to the manufacturer's instructions (CSE) or without applying the primer (CSE/NP). The dentin was irradiated through the uncured adhesive, using an Nd: YAG laser at 0.75 or 1 W power settings. The adhesive was cured, composite crowns were built up, and the teeth were sectioned into beams (0.49 mm(2)) to be stressed under tension. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey statistics (alpha = 5%). Dentin of the fractured specimens and the interfaces of untested beams were observed under scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The results showed that non-etched irradiated surfaces presented higher mu-TBS than etched and irradiated surfaces (p < 0.05). Laser irradiation alone did not lead to differences in mu-TBS (p > 0.05). SEM showed solidification globules on the surfaces of the specimens. The interfaces were similar on irradiated and non-irradiated surfaces. Laser irradiation of dentin through the uncured adhesive did not lead to higher mu-TBS when compared to the suggested manufacturer's technique. However, this treatment brought benefits when performed on unetched dentin, since bond strengths were higher when compared to etched dentin.

Adhesion of substrate-adherent combinations for early composite repairs: Effect of intermediate adhesive resin application

This study evaluated the effect of intermediate adhesive resin application (IAR) on tensile bond strength (TBS) for early composite repairs in situations where substrate and repair composite bonded together were once of the same kind with the substrate (similar) and once other than the substrate material (dissimilar). Specimens from three types of composites (TPH Spectrum (TPH), Charisma (CHA) and Filtek Z250 (Z250)) were fabricated. The specimens in each composite group (n=72) were randomly divided into six subgroups (n=12). In each composite group, the similar and two dissimilar composites were bonded onto the substrates once using an IAR (Adper Single Bond Plus) and once without. After water storage for I week at 37 degrees C, substrate-adherent combinations were submitted to tensile test. Data were analyzed with three-way ANOVA and Tukey's tests (alpha=0.05). The substrate-adherent combination (p=0.0001), adherent (repair) composite (p=0.0001), and application of IAR (p=0.0001) significantly affected the results. Utilization of IAR improved the repair bond strength for all composite combinations. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Effect of Resin Cement Type on the Microtensile Bond Strength to Lithium Disilicate Ceramic and Dentin Using Different Test Assemblies

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Effect of Surface Conditioning Modalities on the Repair Bond Strength of Resin Composite to the Zirconia Core / Veneering Ceramic Complex

Purpose: This study evaluated the effect of different surface conditioning protocols on the repair strength of resin composite to the zirconia core / veneering ceramic complex, simulating the clinical chipping phenomenon.Materials and Methods: Forty disk-shaped zirconia core (Lava Zirconia, 3M ESPE) (diameter: 3 mm) specimens were veneered circumferentially with a feldspathic veneering ceramic (VM7, Vita Zahnfabrik) (thickness: 2 mm) using a split metal mold. They were then embedded in autopolymerizing acrylic with the bonding surfaces exposed. Specimens were randomly assigned to one of the following surface conditioning protocols (n = 10 per group): group 1, veneer: 4% hydrofluoric acid (HF) (Porcelain Etch) + core: aluminum trioxide (50-mu m Al2O3) + core + veneer: silane (ESPE-Sil); group 2: core: Al2O3 (50 mu m) + veneer: HF + core + veneer: silane; group 3: veneer: HF + core: 30 mu m aluminum trioxide particles coated with silica (30 mu m SiO2) + core + veneer: silane; group 4: core: 30 mu m SiO2 + veneer: HF + core + veneer: silane. Core and veneer ceramic were conditioned individually but no attempt was made to avoid cross contamination of conditioning, simulating the clinical intraoral repair situation. Adhesive resin (VisioBond) was applied to both the core and the veneer ceramic, and resin composite (Quadrant Posterior) was bonded onto both substrates using polyethylene molds and photopolymerized. After thermocycling (6000 cycles, 5 degrees C-55 degrees C), the specimens were subjected to shear bond testing using a universal testing machine (1 mm/min). Failure modes were identified using an optical microscope, and scanning electron microscope images were obtained. Bond strength data (MPa) were analyzed statistically using the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test followed by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test and the Bonferroni Holm correction (alpha = 0.05).Results: Group 3 demonstrated significantly higher values (MPa) (8.6 +/- 2.7) than those of the other groups (3.2 +/- 3.1, 3.2 +/- 3, and 3.1 +/- 3.5 for groups 1, 2, and 4, respectively) (p < 0.001). All groups showed exclusively adhesive failure between the repair resin and the core zirconia. The incidence of cohesive failure in the ceramic was highest in group 3 (8 out of 10) compared to the other groups (0/10, 2/10, and 2/10, in groups 1, 2, and 4, respectively). SEM images showed that air abrasion on the zirconia core only also impinged on the veneering ceramic where the etching pattern was affected.Conclusion: Etching the veneer ceramic with HF gel and silica coating of the zirconia core followed by silanization of both substrates could be advised for the repair of the zirconia core / veneering ceramic complex.

The potential of novel primers and universal adhesives to bond to zirconia

Objectives: To investigate the adhesive potential of novel zirconia primers and universal adhesives to surface-treated zirconia substrates.Methods: Zirconia bars were manufactured (3.0 mm x 3.0 mm x 9.0 mm) and treated as follows: no treatment (C); air abrasion with 35 mu m alumina particles (S); air abrasion with 30 mu m silica particles using one of two systems (Rocatec or SilJet) and; glazing (G). Groups C and S were subsequentially treated with one of the following primers or adhesives: ZP (Z-Prime Plus), AZ (AZ Primer); MP (Monobond Plus); SU (ScotchBond Universal) and; EA (an Experimental Adhesive). Groups Rocatec and SilJet were silanized prior to cementation. Samples form group G were further etched and silanized. Bars were cemented (Multilink) onto bars of a silicate-based ceramic (3.0 mm x 3.0 mm x 9.0 mm) at 90 degrees angle, thermocycled (2.500 cycles, 5-55 degrees C, 30 s dwell time), and tested in tensile strength test. Failure analysis was performed on fractured specimens to measure the bonding area and crack origin.Results: Specimens from group C did not survive thermocycling, while CMP, CSU and CEA groups survived thermocycling but rendered low values of bond strength. All primers presented a better bond performance after air abrasion with Al2O3 particles. SilJet was similar to Rocatec, both presenting the best bond strength results, along with SMP, SSU and CEA. G promoted intermediate bond strength values. Failure mode was predominately adhesive on zirconia surface combined to cohesive of the luting agent.Conclusions: Universal adhesives (MP, SU, EA) may be a considerable alternative for bonding to zirconia, but air abrasion is still previously required. Air abrasion with silica particles followed by silane application also presented high bond strength values. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Two-year Clinical Performance of Self-etching Adhesive Systems in Composite Restorations of Anterior Teeth

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the two-year clinical performance of Class III, IV, and V composite restorations using a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive system (2-ERA) and three one-step self-etching adhesive systems (1-SEAs).Material and Methods: Two hundred Class III, IV, and V composite restorations were placed into 50 patients. Each patient received four composite restorations (Amaris, Voco), and these restorations were bonded with one of three 1-SEAs (Futurabond M, Voco; Clearfil S3 Bond, Kuraray; and Optibond All-in-One, Kerr) or one 2-ERA (Adper Single Bond 2/3M ESPE). The four adhesive systems were evaluated at baseline and after 24 months using the following criteria: restoration retention, marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, caries occurrence, postoperative sensitivity and preservation of tooth vitality. After two years, 162 restorations were evaluated in 41 patients. Data were analyzed using the chi(2) test (p<0.05).Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the 2-ERA and the 1-SEAs regarding the evaluated parameters (p>0.05).Conclusion: The 1-SEAs showed good clinical performance at the end of 24 months.