999 resultados para self-etching primers
Resumo:
Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate, by shear bond strength (SBS) testing, the influence of different types of temporary cements on the final cementation using conventional and self-etching resin-based luting cements. Material and Methods: Forty human teeth divided in two halves were assigned to 8 groups (n=10): I and V (no temporary cementation); II and VI: Ca(OH)(2)-based cement; III and VII: zinc oxide (ZO)based cement; IV and VIII: ZO-eugenol (ZOE)-based cement. Final cementation was done with RelyX ARC cement (groups I to IV) and RelyX Unicem cement (groups V to VIII). Data were analyzed statistically by ANOVA and Tukey's test at 5% significance level. Results: Means were (MPa): I - 3.80 (+/- 1.481); II - 5.24 (+/- 2.297); III - 6.98 (+/- 1.885); IV - 6.54 (+/- 1.459); V - 5.22 (+/- 2.465); VI - 4.48 (+/- 1.705); VII - 6.29 (+/- 2.280); VIII - 2.47 (+/- 2.076). Comparison of the groups that had the same temporary cementation (Groups II and VI; III and VII; IV and VIII) showed statistically significant difference (p<0.001) only between Groups IV and VIII, in which ZOE-based cements were used. The use of either Ca(OH) 2 based (Groups II and VI) or ZO-based (Groups III and VII) cements showed no statistically significant difference (p>0.05) for the different luting cements (RelyX (TM) ARC and RelyX (TM) Unicem). The groups that had no temporary cementation (Groups I and V) did not differ significantly from each other either (p>0.05). Conclusion: When temporary cementation was done with ZO- or ZOE-based cements and final cementation was done with RelyX ARC, there was an increase in the SBS compared to the control. In the groups cemented with RelyX Unicem, however, the use of a ZOE-based temporary cement affected negatively the SBS of the luting agent used for final cementation.
Resumo:
This study evaluated comparatively by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) the effect of different dental conditioners on dentin micromorphology, when used according to the same protocol. Forty dentin sticks were obtained from 20 caries-free third human molars and were assigned to 4 groups corresponding to 3 conditioners (phosphoric acid 37%, Clearfil SE Bond and iBond) and an untreated control group. After application of the conditioners, the specimens were immersed in 50% ethanol solution during 10 s, chemically fixed and dehydrated to prepare them to SEM analysis. In the control group, dentin surface was completely covered by smear layer and all dentinal tubules were occluded. In the phosphoric acid-etched group, dentin surface was completely clean and presented exposed dentinal tubule openings; this was the only group in which the tubules exhibited the funnel-shaped aspect. In the groups conditioned with Clearfil SE Bond primer and iBond, which are less acidic than phosphoric acid, tubule openings were occluded or partially occluded, though smear layer removal was observed. SE Bond was more efficient in removing the smear layer than iBond. In the Clearfil SE Bond group, the cuff-like aspect of peritubular dentin was more evident. It may be concluded all tested conditioners were able to change dentin morphology. However, it cannot be stated that the agent aggressiveness was the only cause of the micromorphological alterations because a single morphological pattern was not established for each group, but rather an association of different aspects, according to the aggressiveness of the tested conditioner.
Resumo:
Purpose:This study evaluated the microtensile bond strength of two resin cements to dentin either with their corresponding self-etching adhesives or employing the three-step etch-and-rinse technique. The null hypothesis was that the etch-and-rinse adhesive system would generate higher bond strengths than the self-etching adhesives.Materials and Methods:Thirty-two human molars were randomly divided into four groups (N = 32, n = 8/per group): G1) ED Primer self-etching adhesive + Panavia F; G2) All-Bond 2 etch-and-rinse adhesive + Panavia F; G3) Multilink primer A/B self-etching adhesive + Multilink resin cement; G4) All-Bond 2 + Multilink. After cementation of composite resin blocks (5 x 5 x 4 mm), the specimens were stored in water (37 degrees C, 24 hours), and sectioned to obtain beams (+/- 1 mm2 of adhesive area) to be submitted to microtensile test. The data were analyzed using 2-way analysis of variance and Tukey's test (alpha = 0.05).Results:Although the cement type did not significantly affect the results (p = 0.35), a significant effect of the adhesive system (p = 0.0001) was found on the bond strength results. Interaction terms were not significant (p = 0.88751). The etch-and-rinse adhesive provided significantly higher bond strength values (MPa) with both resin cements (G2: 34.4 +/- 10.6; G4: 33.0 +/- 8.9) compared to the self-etching adhesive systems (G1: 19.8 +/- 6.6; G3: 17.8 +/- 7.2) (p < 0.0001). Pretest failures were more frequent in the groups where self-etching systems were used.Conclusion:Although the cement type did not affect the results, there was a significant effect of changing the bonding strategy. The use of the three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive resulted in significantly higher bond strength for both resin cements on dentin.CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCEDual polymerized resin cements tested could deliver higher bond strength to dentin in combination with etch-and-rinse adhesive systems as opposed to their use in combination with self-etching adhesives.(J Esthet Restor Dent 22:262-269, 2010).
Resumo:
Objectives: To evaluate the hypothesis that a process of hydrofluoric acid precipitate neutralization and fatigue load cycling performed on human premolars restored with ceramic inlays had an influence on microtensile bond strength results (MTBS). Methods: MOD inlay preparations were performed in 40 premolars (with their roots embedded in acrylic resin). Forty ceramic restorations were prepared using glass-ceramic (IPS Empress). The inner surfaces of all the restorations were etched with 10% hydrofluoric acid for 60 seconds, rinsed with water and dried. The specimens were divided into two groups (N=20): 1-without neutralization; 2-with neutralization. All the restorations were silanized and adhesively cemented (self-curing and self-etching luting composite system, Multilink). Ten premolars from each group were submitted to mechanical cycling (1,400,000 cycles, 50N, 37 degrees C). After cycling, the samples were sectioned to produce non-trimmed beam specimens (vestibular dentin-restoration-lingual dentin set), which were submitted to microtensile testing. Results: Bond strength was significantly affected by the surface treatment (p<0.0001) (no neutralization > neutralization) and mechanical cycling (p<0.0001) (control > cycling) (2-way ANOVA and Tukey test, alpha=.05). Conclusion: Hydrofluoric acid precipitate neutralization appears to significantly damage the resin bond to glass-ceramic and should not be recommended. The clinical simulation of the specimens, by using mechanical cycling, is important when evaluating the ceramic-dentin bond.
Resumo:
Purpose: This study evaluated the bond strength of two etch-and-rinse adhesive systems (two- and three-step) and a self-etching system to Coronal and root canal dentin.Materials and Methods: The root canals of 30 human incisors and canines were instrumented and prepared with burs. The posts used for luting were duplicated with dual resin cement (Duo-link) inside Aestheti Plus #2 molds. Thus, three groups were formed (n = 10) according to the adhesive system employed: All-Bond 2 (TE3) + resin cement post (rcp) + Duo-link (DI); One-Step Plus (TE2) + rcp + DI; Tyrian/One-Step Plus (SE) + rcp + DI. Afterwards, 8 transverse sections (1.5 mm) were cut from 4 mm above the CEJ up to 4 mm short of the root canal apex, comprising coronal and root canal dentin. The sections were submitted to push-out testing in a universal testing machine EMIC (1 mm/min). Bond strength data were analyzed with two-way repeated measures ANOVA and Tukey's test (p < 0.05).Results: The relationship between the adhesives was not the same in the different regions (p < 0.05). Comparison of the means achieved with the adhesives in each region (Tukey; p < 0.05) revealed that TE3 (mean standard deviation: 5.22 +/- 1.70) was higher than TE2 (2.60 +/- 1.74) and SE (1.68 +/- 1.85).Conclusion: Under the experimental conditions, better bonding to dentin was achieved using the three-step etch-and-rinse system, especially in the coronal region. Therefore, the traditional etch-and-rinse three-step adhesive system seems to be the best choice for teeth needing adhesive endodontic restorations.
Resumo:
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)
Resumo:
Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)
Resumo:
International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 2012; 22: 435441 Background. Hydrophilic adhesives may be used as pit and fissure sealants (sealants), but there is concern about the ability of self-etching adhesives to bond sealants to enamel. Aim. To study the bond strength (BS) and morphology of adhesive systems used as sealants. Design. OptiBond FL, OptiBond All-in-One, combined OptiBond All-in-One + OptiBond FL adhesive, and Fluroshield were applied to the occlusal surfaces of 16 primary molars (n = 4). Teeth were stored in distilled water (24 h at 37 degrees C) and sectioned through the interface to obtain sticks (0.8 mm2) tested under a tensile load (0.5 mm/min). Failure modes were observed. Data were analysed by ANOVA and Tukeys tests (a = 5%). The morphology of 12 primary molars was examined in terms of the etching pattern and resin reproduction. Results. Differences in the BS were found (P = 0.001), with OptiBond FL showing the highest (36.84 +/- 5.7 MPa), Fluroshield (24.26 +/- 2.13 MPa) and OptiBond All-in-One (17.12 +/- 4.97 MPa) similar, and OptiBond All-in-One + OptiBond FL adhesive the lowest (9.8 +/- 2.94 MPA). OptiBond FL showed the best results in terms of morphology. Conclusion. Under the conditions of this study, OptiBond FL was the best material to be used for sealing.
Resumo:
Purpose: To investigate the microleakage of four hydrophilic adhesive systems: one multiple-bottles (Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus); two one-bottle (Single Bond, Stae); and one self-etching (Etch & Prime 3.0). Materials and Methods: 120 bovine incisor teeth were divided into four groups (n = 30) and Class V cavities were prepared at the cemento-enamel junction. The cavities were restored with the adhesive systems and with Z100 composite. The teeth were thermocycled 1,000 times between 5 +/- 2 degreesC and 55 +/- 2 degreesC with a dwell time of 1 min, and then placed in a 2% methylene blue dye (pH 7.0) for 4 hrs, washed and sectioned vertically through the center of the restorations. The qualitative evaluation was made by three examiners who distributed pre-established scores (0-4) for each tooth using a stereomicroscope at x30 magnification. Results: In enamel margins little microleakage was observed and the Kruskal-Wallis analysis did not show differences. In dentin margins the KruskaI-Wallis and multiple comparison analyses were applied: microleakage was significantly greater with Stae (median 3) and Scotchbond MP Plus (median 4). Single Bond (median 1) and Etch & Prime 3.0 (median 2) showed the best results in dentin margins, and the statistical analysis did not demonstrate differences in microleakage among these groups.
Resumo:
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of intrapulpal pressure and dentin depth on bond strengths of an etch-and-rinse and a self-etching bonding agent to dentin in vitro and in vivo. Twenty-four pairs of premolars were randomly divided into four groups (n = 6) according to the dentin bonding agent, Single Bond and Clearfil SE Bond, and intrapulpal pressure, null or positive. Each tooth of the pair was further designated to be treated in vivo or in vitro. The intrapulpal pressure was controlled in vivo by the delivery of local anesthetics containing or not a vasoconstrictor, while in vitro, it was achieved by keeping the teeth under hydrostatic pressure. Class I cavities were prepared and the dentin bonding agents were applied followed by incremental resin restoration. For the teeth treated in vitro, the same restorative procedures were performed after a 6 month-storage period. Beams with I mm 2 cross-sectional area were prepared and, microtensile tested. Clearfil SE Bond was not influenced by any of the variables of the study, while bond strengths produced in vitro were significatly higher for Single Bond. Overall, lower bond strengths were produced in deep dentin, which reached statistical significance when Single Bond was applied under physiological or simulated intrapulpal pressure. In conclusion, in vitro bonding may overestimate the immediate adhesive performance of more technique-sensitive dentin bonding systems. The impact of intrapulpal pressure on bond strength seems to be more adhesive dependent than dentin morphological characteristics related to depth. (C) 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Resumo:
Objective: To measure 2-week postoperative sensitivity in Class II composite restorations placed with a self-etching adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond) or a total-etch adhesive (Prime&Bond NT) with or without a flowable composite as cervical increment. Method and materials: Upon approval by the University of Guarulhos Committee on Human Subjects, 100 restorations were inserted in 46 patients who required Class II restorations in their molars and premolars. Enamel and dentin walls were conditioned with a self-etching primer (for Clearfil SE Bond) or etched with 34% phosphoric acid (for Prime&Bond NT). A 1- to 2-mm-thick increment of a flowable composite (Filtek Flow) was used in the proximal box in 50% of the restorations of each adhesive. Preparations were restored with a packable composite (Surefil). The restorations were evaluated preoperatively and 2 weeks postoperatively for sensitivity to cold, air, and masticatory forces using a visual analog scale. Marginal integrity of the accessible margins was also evaluated. Statistical analysis used a mixed linear model with subject as a random effect. Results: Ninety-eight teeth from 44 subjects were observed at 2 weeks. The type of adhesive and use of flowable composite had no significant effects or interaction for any of the four outcomes of interest, ie, change from baseline to 2 weeks in sensitivity and response time for the cold or air stimulus. For the air stimulus, the overall average change from baseline was not significant for either sensitivity or response time. For the cold stimulus, the overall average change from baseline was significant for both sensitivity and response time. No case of sensitivity to masticatory forces was observed. Conclusion: No differences in postoperative sensitivity were observed between a self-etch adhesive and a total-etch adhesive at 2 weeks. The use of flowable composite did not decrease postoperative sensitivity.
Resumo:
Purpose: To evaluate the pullout strength of a glass fiber-reinforced composite post (glass FRC) cemented with three different adhesive systems and one resin cement. The null hypothesis was that pullout strengths yielded by the adhesive systems are similar. Materials and Methods: Thirty bovine teeth were selected. The size of the specimens was standardized at 16 mm by sectioning off the coronal portion and part of the root. The specimens were divided into three groups, according to the adhesive system, which were applied following the manufacturers' instructions: G1, ScotchBond Multi-Purpose Plus; G2, Single Bond; G3, Tyrian SPE/One-Step Plus. The glass FRCs (Reforpost) were etched with 37% H3PO4 for 1 min and silanized (Porcelain Primer). Thereafter, they were cemented with the dual resin cement En-Force. The specimens were stored for 24 h, attached to an adapted device, and submitted to the pullout test in a universal testing machine (1 mm/min). The data were submitted to the one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α = 0.05). Results: G1 (30.2 ± 5.8 Kgf) displayed the highest pullout strength (p < 0.001) when compared to G2 (18.6 ± 5.8 Kgf) and G3 (14.3 ± 5.8 Kgf), which were statistically similar. Analysis of the specimens revealed that all failures occurred between the adhesive system and the root dentin (pullout of the post cement), regardless of group. Conclusion: The multiple-bottle, total-etch adhesive system provided higher pullout strength of the glass FRC when compared to the single-bottle, total-etch, and single-step self-etching adhesive systems. The null hypothesis was rejected (p < 0.001).
Resumo:
The purpose of this study was to evaluate in vitro three adhesive systems: a total etching single-component system (G1 Prime & Bond 2.1), a self-etching primer (G2 Clearfil SE Bond), and a self-etching adhesive (G3 One Up Bond F), through shear bond strength to enamel of human teeth, evaluating the type of fracture through stereomicroscopy, following the ISO guidance on adhesive testing. Thirty sound premolars were bisected mesiodistally and the buccal and lingual surfaces were embedded in acrylic resin, polished up to 600-grit sandpapers, and randomly assigned to three experimental groups (n = 20). Composite resin cylinders were added to the tested surfaces. The specimens were kept in distilled water (37°C/24 h), thermocycled for 500 cycles (5°C-55°C) and submitted to shear testing at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The type of fracture was analyzed under stereomicroscopy and the data were submitted to Anova, Tukey and Chi-squared (5%) statistical analyses. The mean adhesive strengths were G1: 18.13 ± 6.49 MPa, (55% of resin cohesive fractures); G2: 17.12 ± 5.80 MPa (90% of adhesive fractures); and G3: 10.47 ± 3.14 MPa (85% of adhesive fractures). In terms of bond strength, there were no significant differences between G1 and G2, and G3 was significantly different from the other groups. G1 presented a different type of fracture from that of G2 and G3. In conclusion, although the total etching and self-etching systems presented similar shear bond strength values, the types of fracture presented by them were different, which can have clinical implications.
Tensile bond strength: Evaluation of four current adhesive systems in abraded enamel and deep dentin
Resumo:
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.
Resumo:
Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the bond strength of adhesive systems to dentin contaminated by temporary cements with or without eugenol. Method: Flat dentin surfaces were obtained from twenty-four human third molars. With exception of the control group (n=8), the surfaces were covered with Interim Restorative Material (Caulk Dentsplay, Milford, DE, USA) or Cavit (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) and kept in an oven at 37°C for seven days. After removing the cements, the adhesive systems Adper Single Bond (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) or Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray Co. Ltd., Osaka, Japan) were applied in accordance with the manufacturers' recommendations, and then the crowns were constructed in of resin composite. The teeth were sectioned into specimens with a cross-sectional bond area of 0.81mm2, which were submitted to microtensile testing in a mechanical test machine at an actuator speed of 0.5mm/min. The data were analyzed by t- and ANOVA tests, complemented by Tukey tests (α=0.05). Results: For Adper Single Bond (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA), bond strength did not differ statistically (p>0.05) for all the experimental conditions. For Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray Co. Ltd., Osaka, Japan), only the Interim Restorative Material (Caulk Dentsplay, Milford, DE, USA) Group showed significantly lower bond strength (30.1 ± 13.8 MPa) in comparison with the other groups; control (38.9 ± 13.5 MPa) and Cavit (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) (42.1 ± 11.0 MPa), which showed no significant difference between them. Conclusion: It was concluded that the previous covering of dentin with temporary cement containing eugenol had a deleterious effect on the adhesive performance of the self-etching system only.