Bond strength of Epiphany (TM) Sealer combined with different adhesive systems photo-activated with LED and QTH

The Epiphany (TM) Sealer is a new dual-curing resin-based sealer and has been introduced as an alternative to gutta-percha and traditional root canal sealers. The canal filling is claimed to create a seal with the dentinal tubules within the root canal system producing a 'monoblock' effect between the sealer and dentinal tubules. Therefore, considering the possibility to incorporate the others adhesive systems, it is important to study the bond strength of the resulting cement. Forty-eight root mandibular canines were sectioned 8-mm below CEJ. The dentine discs were prepared using a tapered diamond bur and irrigated with 1% NaOCl and 17% EDTA. Previous the application Epiphany (TM) Sealer, the Epiphany (TM) Primer, AdheSE, and One Up Bond F were applied to the root canal walls. The LED and QTH (Quartz Tungsten Halogen) were used to photo-activation during 45 s with power density of 400 and 720 mW/cm(2), respectively. The specimens were performed on a universal testing machine at a cross-head speed of 1 mm/min until bond failure occurred. The force was recorded and the debonding values were used to calculate Push-out bond strength. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's post-hoc tests showed significant statistical differences (P < 0.05) to Epiphany (TM) Sealer/Epiphany (TM) Primer/QTH and EpiphanyTM Sealer/AdheSE/QTH, which had the highest mean values of bond strength. The efficiency of resin-based filling materials are dependent the type of light curing unit used including the power density, the polymerization characteristics of these resin-based filling materials, depending on the primer/adhesive used.

Microshear Bond Strength of Self-etching Bonding Systems to Ultrasound Diamond Bur-prepared Dentin

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of dentin abrasion on the microshear bond strength of two self-etching adhesive systems, using either an ultrasound diamond bur or a high-speed diamond bur.Materials and Methods: Twenty noncarious human third molars were sectioned mesiodistally into halves. The enamel was ground to expose a flat dentin surface on both sections. The dentinal surfaces were randomly assigned to two groups, depending on the method of smear layer preparation: ultrasound diamond bur (UB) or conventional diamond bur (CB). The prepared dentin surfaces received one of two self-etching systems: Clearfil SE Bond (CF) and One-Up Bond F (OB). A composite cylinder with a 0.95-mm diameter was bonded to each specimen and the microshear bond test was performed. The results were expressed in MPa and were subjected to two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's test (alpha = 0.05).Results: There was no significant difference in dentin bond strength when comparing the conventional and ultrasonic abrasion methods. When the adhesive systems were compared, Clearfil SE Bond achieved higher bond strength means than did One-Up Bond F.Conclusion: The dentin surface preparation method did not influence the microshear bond strength and the Clearfil SE Bond adhesive system, independent of bur type used, Clearfil SE Bond showed higher bond strengths than did the One-Up Bond F adhesive system.

Influence of Application Methods of Self-etching Adhesive Systems on Adhesive Bond Strength to Dentin

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

Influence of Methods of Application of Self-etching Adhesive Systems on Adhesive Bond Strength to Enamel

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

Effect of dentinal surface preparation on bond strength of self-etching adhesive systems

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of dentin surface treatments on the tensile bond strength (TBS) of the self-etching primer Clearfil SE Bond (CSE) and the one-step self-etching One-Up Bond F (OUB). The exposed flat dentin surfaces of twenty-four sound third molars were prepared with diamond bur at high-speed, carbide bur at low-speed or wet ground with #600 grit SiC paper. The adhesive systems were applied to the dentin surfaces and light-cured according to the manufacturers' instructions. A 6-mm high composite crown was incrementally built-up and each increment was light-cured for 40 seconds. After being stored in water (37°C/24 h), the samples were serially sectioned parallel to the long axis, forming beams (n = 20) with a cross-sectional area of approximately 0.8 mm 2. The specimens were tested in a Universal Testing Machine at 0.5 mm/min. The cross-sectional area was measured and the results (MPa) were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey Test (p < 0.05). Overall, the groups treated with CSE exhibited the highest TBS for all surface treatments. Dentin surfaces prepared with carbide bur at low speed reduced TBS in the CSE group; however, OUB was not affected by surface treatments. The effect of surface abrasive methods on TBS was material-dependent.

Bond strength of adhesive systems to human tooth enamel

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 of self-etching versus total-etching adhesive systems under different dentinal substrate conditions

The use of acid etchants to produce surface demineralization and collagen network exposure, allowing adhesive monomers interdiffusion and consequently the formation of a hybrid layer, has been considered the most efficient mechanism of dentin bonding. The aim of this study was to compare the tensile bond strength to dentin of three adhesive systems, two self-etching ones (Clearfil SE Bond - CSEB and One Up Bond F - OUBF) and one total-etching one (Single Bond - SB), under three dentinal substrate conditions (wet, dry and re-wet). Ninety human, freshly extracted third molars were sectioned at the occlusal surface to remove enamel and to form a flat dentin wall. The specimens were restored with composite resin (Filtek Z250) and submitted to tensile bond strength testing (TBS) in an MTS 810. The data were submitted to two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (p = 0.05). Wet dentin presented the highest TBS values for SB and CSEB. Dry dentin and re-wet produced significantly lower TBS values when using SB. OUBF was not affected by the different conditions of the dentin substrate, producing similar TBS values regardless of the surface pretreatments.

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.

Bond strength of adhesives to dentin contaminated with smoker's saliva.

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of contamination with smoker's and non-smoker's saliva on the bond strength of resin composite to superficial dentin using different adhesive systems. The interfacial structure between the resin and dentin was evaluated for each treatment using environmental scanning electron microscopy (ESEM). Freshly extracted human molars were ground with 600-grit SiC paper to expose the superficial dentin. Adhesives [One-Up-Bond-F-Plus (OUFP) and Adper-Prompt-L-Pop (APLP)] and resin composite (TPHSpectrum) were bonded to the dentin (n = 8/group, 180 total specimens) under five surface conditions: control (adhesive applied following manufacturers' instructions); saliva, then 5-s air dry, then adhesive; adhesive, saliva, 5-s air dry; adhesive, saliva, 5-s water rinse, 5-s air dry (ASW group); and adhesive, saliva, 5-s water rinse, 5-s air dry, reapply adhesive (ASWA group). After storage in water at 37 degrees C for 24 h, the specimens were debonded under tension at a speed of 0.5 mm/min. ESEM photomicrographs of the dentin/adhesive interfaces were taken. Mean bond strength ranged from 8.1 to 24.1 MPa. Fisher's protected least significant difference (P = 0.05) intervals for critical adhesive, saliva, and surface condition differences were 1.3, 1.3, and 2.1 MPa, respectively. There were no significant differences in bond strength to dentin between contamination by smoker's and nonsmoker's saliva, but bond strengths were significantly different between adhesive systems, with OUFP twice as strong as APLP under almost all conditions. After adhesive application and contamination with either smoker's or nonsmoker's saliva followed by washing and reapplication of the adhesive (ASWA group), the bond strength of both adhesive systems was the same as that of the control group.

In Vitro Antibacterial Activity of Adhesive Systems on Streptococcus Mutans

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

Effects of Self-Etching Adhesive Systems Used in the Dental Modelling Technique on the Cohesive Strength of Composite Resin

This study evaluated the cohesive strength of composite using self-etching adhesive systems (SE) in the lubrication of instruments between layers of composite. The specimens were made by using a Teflon (R) device. SE were used at the interface to lubricate the instruments: Group 1(G1) - control group, no lubricant was used; Group 2(G2) -Futurabond (R) M; Group 3(G3) - Optibond (R) All-In-One; Group 4(G4) - Clearfil (R) SE Bond; Group 5(G5) - Futurabond (R) NR; Group 6(G6) - Adper (R) SE Plus; Group 7(G7) - One Up Bond (R) F. Specimens were submitted to the tensile test to evaluate the cohesive strength. Data were submitted to the ANOVA and Tukey tests. ANOVA showed a value of p = 0.00. The average means (SD): G2 = 11.33(+/-3.44) a, G3 = 15.36(+/-4.06) ab, G4 = 18.9(+/-4.72) bc, G7 = 19.62(+/-4.46) bc, G5 = 21.02(+/-5.09) bc, G6 = 23.39(+/-4.17) cd, and G1 = 28.49(+/-2.89) d. All SE decreased the cohesive strength of the composite, except for Adper (R) SE Plus.

Resposta pulpar de dentes de ratos após tratamento capeador direto com sistema adesivo monocomponente ou autocondicionante

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

Efeito da ciclagem de ph erosiva nas propriedades mecânicas da dentina utilizando diferentes materiais restauradores

Pós-graduação em Odontologia - FOA

Avaliação da dureza superficial de cimentos resinosos após cimentação de pinos de fibra de vidro: efeito de profundidade de polimerização e sistemas adesivos

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

Análise da resistência adesiva à dentina de diferentes sistemas adesivos pelo teste de microtração e microscopia eletrônica de varredura

Pós-graduação em Ciências Odontológicas - FOAR