Push‐out bond strength of an experimental self‐adhesive resin cement

The adhesion of fiber posts luted with simplified adhesive systems has been a matter of great interest over the past years. The aim of this study was to assess the post retentive potential of experimental self‐adhesive resin cement (EXP) when used alone and in combination with a self‐etch adhesive. Fiber posts were placed in endodontically treated teeth and divided into four groups (n = 6) according the luting material, as follows: group 1 (EXP alone); group 2 (EXP used with self‐etch adhesive); group 3 (marketed dual‐cured cement used with self‐etch adhesive); and group 4 (marketed self‐adhesive cement). The push‐out test was used to assess the retentive strength of fiber posts (expressed in MPa), and specimens were analyzed under a stereomicroscope to determine failure mode. The adhesive interface between the cement and root canal dentin for each group was evaluated using scanning electron microscopy. The post retentive potential of group 1 (EXP) (7.48 ± 4.35 MPa) was comparable with that of marketed cements from group 4 (6.79 ± 3.68 MPa) and group 3 (8.77 ± 4.58 MPa). When EXP was used in combination with self‐etch adhesive (group 2), significantly higher push‐out bond‐strength values were measured (15.87 ± 4.68 MPa) compared with the other groups.     

The effect of different sealer removal protocols on the bond strength of AH plus‐contaminated dentine to a bulk‐fill composite

The integrity of composite bonding for post‐endodontic restorations may be compromised by sealer contamination. This study assessed the effect of different sealer removal regimes on the bond strength of dentine to composite resin. Dentine surfaces were contaminated with AH Plus sealer (Dentsply DeTrey, Konstanz, Germany), followed by removal with either dry cotton pellets, cotton pellets saturated with 95% ethanol, AH Plus cleaner or external surface preparation. Dentine surfaces were not contaminated in a positive control group. A bulk‐fill composite (SDR; Dentsply) was bonded with Prime&Bond active universal adhesive (Dentsply) onto the prepared surface. Composite resin–dentine beams were produced, and tensile bond strength was determined using a universal testing machine. Using an etch‐and‐rinse adhesive, bond strengths varied from 21.34 to 29.11 MPa with no statistical differences among removal protocols. In conclusion, contamination by AH Plus sealer does not appear to substantially interfere with bond strength between dentine and a bulk‐fill composite/etch‐and‐rinse system.     

Evaluation of the adhesion of fiber posts cemented using different adhesive approaches

The aim of this study was to investigate the adhesion of fiber posts cemented with luting agents that utilize three currently available adhesive approaches: etch‐and‐rinse, self‐etch, and self‐adhesive. Forty‐two intact single‐rooted human premolars were used in the study. Teeth were divided into six groups. In each group, a different resin cement with its adhesive system (if needed) and a fiber post were used. The groups were classified, according to the adhesive approach, into the following three categories. (i) Etch‐and‐rinse groups: Calibra resin cement/XPBond adhesive + self‐curing activator (SCA)/RadiX Fiber Post (Dentsply Caulk), FluoroCore 2 core build‐up material/XPBond + SCA/RadiX Fiber Post (Dentsply Caulk), and MultiCore Flow luting and core build‐up material/Excite DSC adhesive/FRC Postec Plus fiber post (Ivoclar Vivadent). (ii) Self‐etch group: Panavia F 2.0/ED primer (Kuraray)/RadiX Fiber Post (Dentsply Caulk). (iii) Self‐adhesive groups: experimental self‐adhesive cement/RadiX Fiber Post (Dentsply Caulk), and RelyX Unicem/RelyX Fiber Post (3M ESPE). The adhesion between the post and the root canal walls was assessed using the ‘thin‐slice’ push‐out test. In the test arrangement used, the self‐etching approach may offer less favourable adhesion to root canal dentin in comparison with etch‐and‐rinse and self‐adhesive approaches.     

Immediate enamel bond strength of universal adhesives to unground and ground surfaces in different etching modes

The purpose of this study was to determine the immediate bond effectiveness of universal adhesives to unground and ground enamel surfaces in different etching modes, through shear bond strength (SBS) tests and scanning electron microscopy observations. Three universal adhesives, a conventional two‐step self‐etch adhesive, and a conventional single‐step self‐etch adhesive were compared. Human enamel specimens from lower anterior teeth were divided into four groups and subjected to the following treatments: (i) unground enamel in self‐etch mode; (ii) ground enamel in self‐etch mode; (iii) unground enamel in etch‐&‐rinse mode; and (iv) ground enamel in etch‐&‐rinse mode. Bonded assemblies were subjected to SBS testing. All the adhesives showed significantly higher SBS values in etch‐&‐rinse mode than in self‐etch mode, regardless of whether enamel was unground or ground. The influence of the enamel surface condition on SBS was different in different etching modes. Without pre‐etching, all tested materials showed lower SBS values in unground enamel than in ground enamel. In etch‐&‐rinse mode, no significant differences in SBS values were observed between unground enamel and ground enamel for any of the adhesives tested. Phosphoric acid pre‐etching before application of self‐etch adhesives to an unground enamel surface is essential to enhance initial enamel bond effectiveness.     

Role of preliminary etching for one‐step self‐etch adhesives

Taschner M, Nato F, Mazzoni A, Frankenberger R, Krämer N, Di Lenarda R, Petschelt A, Breschi L. Role of preliminary etching for one‐step self‐etch adhesives.
Eur J Oral Sci 2010; 118: 517–524. © 2010 Eur J Oral Sci The aim of this study was to analyse the effect of preliminary phosphoric acid etching of enamel and dentine before the application of two, one‐step self‐etch adhesive systems. The systems were applied onto acid‐etched or smear‐layer‐covered enamel and dentine. The treatment groups were as follows: group 1, Adper Easy Bond (3M ESPE) on etched substrate; group 2, Adper Easy Bond (control); group 3, iBond Self‐Etch (Heraeus Kulzer) on etched substrate; and group 4, iBond Self‐Etch (control). Enamel and dentine bond strengths were calculated using microshear and microtensile bond‐strength tests. Additional specimens were prepared to evaluate nanoleakage at the dentine–adhesive interface and were investigated using light microscopy or transmission electron microscopy. Both adhesives demonstrated higher microshear bond strengths when enamel was pre‐acid‐etched with phosphoric acid (Adper Easy Bond 28.7 ± 4.8 MPa; iBond Self‐Etch 19.7 ± 3.6 MPa) compared with controls (Adper Easy Bond 19.2 ± 3.3 MPa; iBond Self‐Etch 17.5 ± 2.7 MPa) and increased microtensile bond strength when applied on acid‐etched (Adper Easy Bond 35.8 ± 5.7 MPa; iBond Self‐Etch 24.3 ± 7.9 MPa) vs. smear‐layer‐covered dentine (Adper Easy Bond 26.9 ± 6.2 MPa; iBond Self‐Etch 17.6 ± 4.3 MPa). Adper Easy Bond showed lower nanoleakage than iBond Self‐Etch, irrespective of preliminary etching. The results of this study support the use of phosphoric acid etching before the application of one‐step self‐etch adhesive systems.     

Effect of three radicular dentine treatments and two luting cements on the regional bond strength of quartz fibre posts

The purpose was to investigate by push-out tests and scanning electron microscopy (SEM)/energy-dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) the effect, after first acid etching the post space walls, of three radicular dentine treatments on the regional bond strength of quartz fibre posts placed using two heavily filled resin luting cements. The crowns of 39 extracted maxillary central incisors were sectioned transversely 2 mm coronal to the labial cement-enamel junction and the roots endodontically treated. After standardized post space preparations and etching 15 s with 32% phosphoric acid, 36 roots were randomly divided into six equal groups. Quartz fibre posts (D.T. LIGHT-POST) were placed using three radicular dentine treatments (0.9% sodium chloride (NaCl) for 60 s, 10% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) for 60 s, 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) for 60 s followed by 5.25% NaOCl for 60 s) and two resin composite luting cements (ONE-STEP PLUS/DUO-LINK; ONE-STEP PLUS/LuxaCore Dual). Transverse segments (S1–S7), 1.00 mm (SD = 0.05 mm) thick, were sectioned from the coronal 8 mm of each root. Push-out bond strength tests were performed on coronal, middle and apical post space segments (S2, S4, S6) at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Data were recorded and analyzed using a two-way mixed ANOVA design (a = 0.05). Three segments (S1, S5, S7) from roots in each group were examined using SEM/EDS. After post space preparation, acid etching and using each of the three radicular dentine treatments, the three remaining roots were sectioned longitudinally for SEM observation of the post space walls. At all root segment sites, the mean bond strengths from using 0.9% NaCl were significantly lower than for the other two radicular dentine treatments (P ≤ 0.02), and DUO-LINK cement had significantly higher mean bond strengths than LuxaCore Dual cement (P ≤ 0.01). There was a significant linear trend for reduced bond strengths from coronal to apical post space segments (P < 0.001), which was supported by the SEM/EDS observations of dentine tubule appearance and resin tag formation. Acid etching followed by either 10% NaOCl or 17% EDTA and 5.25% NaOCl dentine treatments of the post spaces provided good adhesion and resin luting cement tag infiltration of dentinal tubules in the coronal and middle segments in particular.     

Comparison of the push-out strength of two fiber post systems dependent on different types of resin cements

The purpose of this study was to compare the push-out strength of glass fiber posts dependent on the resin cement. One hundred human teeth were divided into five groups (n = 20). Two glass fiber post systems (DT Light SL (DTSL) and RelyX Fiber Post (RF)) were used. DTSL posts were cemented with one "etch & rinse" system (ER) or one of three self-adhesive resin cements (SA). The RF posts were cemented with RelyX Unicem. Afterwards, half of the specimens were thermocycled (TC; 5°C/55°C, 5,000 cycles). All specimens were cut into disks (thickness, 2 mm). The push-out test was performed (crosshead speed, 1 mm/min), fracture types were determined (×25 and ×40 magnification), and statistical analysis was performed (one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Scheffe test, p < 0.05). One-way ANOVA showed a significant influence of the resin cement on the push-out strength of the glass fiber posts before thermocycling (p < 0.001). After TC, no significant differences were detected. Microscopic evaluation showed mainly adhesive failures between post and cement for ER or mixed fractures for SA. The bond strength of adhesively cemented glass fiber posts is not dependent on the type of resin cement after TC. The use of SA can lead to bond strength values comparable to ER. Self-adhesive resin cements could be used just as well as resin cements with "etch & rinse" adhesive systems for the cementation of glass fiber posts.     

Effect of EDTA conditioning upon the retention of fibre posts luted with resin cements

Aim To determine if a final rinse with EDTA improves the short‐term in‐tooth retentive strength of adhesively luted fibre‐reinforced composite posts. Methodology Six different commercial fibre post systems were tested. Post spaces in extracted human anterior teeth were irrigated with either 6% NaOCl or 6% NaOCl followed by 17% EDTA. Posts were luted using the manufacturer’s recommended bonding agent and luting cement. Two different sizes of post were tested for each post system. After 24 h of storage, the retentive strength of the post to the tooth (14 per group, 336 total) was tested using a pull‐out technique. Three‐way anova and the Student–Newman–Kuels test were used to test the effects of irrigation regimen, post size and post brand on the retentive strength of the fibre post. Results Almost every sample failed at the interface between dentine and luting cement. Irrigation method did not have any significant effect (P > 0.14) for any group other than ParaPost Fibre White (P < 0.001). The overall retention of a post appeared to be correlated to the amount of surface texture on the post; the smooth ICEPost was the least retentive brand, the textured FibreKor and the ParaPost Fibre White posts were moderately retained, and the threaded Flexi‐Post Fibre and the Flexi‐Flange Fibre posts were the most retentive brands tested. For all brands, larger diameter posts were more retentive than smaller diameter posts (P < 0.008). Conclusions A final rinse of EDTA did not improve the short‐term retention of fibre posts except for ParaPost Fibre White.     

The Effect of Endodontic Irrigants on the Microtensile Bond Strength of Dentin Adhesives

IntroductionThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength of a total etch (XP-Bond) and a self-etch (Clearfil SE Bond) adhesive system to dentine surfaces treated using endodontic irrigants.MethodsTwenty-four freshly extracted third molars were used. After creating a smear layer on the coronal midthird portion of the crowns, the teeth were divided into three groups and surfaces were irrigated with distilled water, 5.25% NaOCl + 17% EDTA, and 1.3% NaOCl + BioPure MTAD, respectively. Each group was divided into two subgroups, and a self-etching adhesive and an etch-and-rinse adhesive were applied respectively. The teeth were restored with a composite material and sectioned to produce sticks for microtensile bond testing.ResultsThe microtensile bond strength of the MTAD + Clearfil SE group was found to be significantly lower than the microtensile bond strength of the distilled water + Clearfil SE Bond group and the NaOCl, EDTA, + Clearfil SE Bond group (p = 0.0001, p = 0.009).ConclusionsBecause of the significant reduction of Clearfil SE Bond to coronal dentine after MTAD application, an etch-and rinse adhesive such as XP-Bond may be preferred if this irrigant has been chosen during endodontic treatment.     

Shear Bond Strengths of One-Bottle Adhesives to Oil-Contaminated Enamel

Purpose: To evaluate resin bond strength to enamel contaminated with handpiece oil. Materials and Methods: Bovine teeth were randomly assigned to six groups of 20 teeth each for treatment with one of six different bonding systems (five one‐bottle and one multibottle). For each system, 10 enamel specimens were contaminated with handpiece oil before acid‐etching and 10 were contaminated after acid‐etching. The enamel was etched for 15 seconds using 35% phosphoric acid. Following adhesive application, composite resin was bonded using a gelatin capsule technique. Shear bond strengths from the two contaminated groups were compared to bond strengths to uncontaminated enamel obtained from a previous study that was performed by the same group of investigators, using the same facility, materials, and methods. Results: Two‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that the factor “surface contamination” did not have a significant effect on bond strength (p > .542). The type of adhesive and the interaction of adhesive and surface contamination were significant (p <.0001 and p <.003, respectively). When oil was applied before etching, mean bond strengths ranged from 18.0 ± 4.8 MPa for OptiBond SOLO (Kerr Corp., Orange, California) to 25.3 ± 5.6 MPa for Tenure Quik with Fluoride (Den‐Mat Corp., Santa Maria, California). With oil applied after etching, bond strengths ranged from 18.4 ± 8.0 MPa for Tenure Quik with Fluoride to 27.4 ± 5.4 MPa for Single Bond (3M Dental Products, St. Paul, Minnesota). For the same adhesive, comparing uncontaminated and “oil‐before‐etch” contaminated groups, the only statistically significant difference in bond strengths was for OptiBond SOLO: 21.8 ± 4.0 MPa (uncontaminated) versus 18.0 ± 4.8 MPa (oil before etch). Comparing uncontaminated and “oil‐after‐etch” groups, the only statistically significant difference was for Tenure: 24.5 ± 5.7 MPa (uncontaminated) and 18.4 ± 8.0 MPa (oil after etch). CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE Surface contamination with handpiece lubricant oil does not impair appreciably the efficacy of the adhesives used in this study when bonding composite resin to enamel.     

Adhesion to Er:YAG laser and bur prepared root and crown dentine

Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the bond strengths between dentine and resin composite obtained after Er:YAG laser treatment of crown or root dentine used together with self‐etch and total‐etch adhesive systems. Methods: One etch‐and‐rinse adhesive (Single Bond, 3M, USA) and one self‐etch system (Clearfil SE Bond, Kuraray, Japan) were applied to root and crown dentine prepared with a regular bur in a turbine or with an Er:YAG laser. The shear bond strength was determined after thermocycling and statistically analysed using independent t‐tests. Results: Crown sites bonded using Clearfil SE Bond and Single Bond adhesives yielded bond strengths similar to that of root dentine sites (p > 0.05). Clearfil SE Bond was stronger in both the lased and non‐lased groups (p < 0.05). The lowest bond strength was obtained when Single Bond without acid etching was used on Er:YAG ablated dentine. When total‐etch adhesive was used, there were significant differences (p < 0.05) between the laser‐ablated and laser‐ablated/acid‐etched and bur‐cut/acid‐etched groups. Conclusions: Er:YAG laser irradiation of root and crown dentine conducted prior to the adhesive protocol adversely affected adhesion and decreased bond strength compared with traditional preparation.     

Effects of chlorhexidine on bonding durability of different adhesive systems using a novel thermocycling method

Background

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of chlorhexidine on the bonding durability of etch‐and‐rinse and self‐etch adhesive systems using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) thermocycling method.

Methods

Twenty freshly extracted intact human third molars were ground and bonded with either an etch‐and‐rinse adhesive (Single‐Bond) or a self‐etch adhesive (G‐Bond). Specimens were either left untouched or placed in PCR tubes filled with three thermocycling mediums: water, chlorhexidine or silicone oil. Thermocycling (5000 cycles) was done using the PCR programme at temperatures of 5 °C and 55 °C. The microtensile bond strength (μTBS) was evaluated and interfacial nanoleakage was assessed by scanning electron microscopy before and after thermocycling.

Results

Significant differences were detected among groups kept in different media after thermocycling. For Single‐Bond, both the chlorhexidine and silicone oil groups could preserve the μTBS (p < 0.001). For G‐Bond, μTBS of the chlorhexidine and water groups were significantly decreased (p < 0.05). No obvious increase in silver deposition was observed in specimens incubated in water after thermocycling, less silver penetration was found in specimens incubated in chlorhexidine.

Conclusions

In this experimental model, chlorhexidine was found to preserve bonding durability in Single‐Bond but have no significant effects on G‐Bond.     

Enzymatic degradation of adhesive–dentin interfaces produced by mild self‐etch adhesives

De Munck J, Mine A, Van den Steen PE, Van Landuyt KL, Poitevin A, Opdenakker G, Van Meerbeek B. Enzymatic degradation of adhesive–dentin interfaces produced by mild self‐etch adhesives.
Eur J Oral Sci 2010; 118: 494–501. © 2010 Eur J Oral Sci Endogenous matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) released by adhesive procedures may degrade collagen in the hybrid layer and so compromise the bonding effectiveness of etch‐and‐rinse adhesives. In this study, endogenous enzymatic degradation was evaluated for several simplified self‐etch adhesives. In addition, primers were modified by adding two MMP inhibitors: chlorhexidine, a commonly used disinfectant, but also a non‐specific MMP inhibitor; and SB‐3CT, a specific inhibitor of MMP‐2 and MMP‐9. Gelatin zymography of fresh human dentin powder was used to identify the enzymes released by the adhesives. Micro‐tensile bond strength (μTBS) testing was used to assess the mechanical properties of resin–dentin interfaces over time. In none of the experimental groups treated with the mild self‐etch adhesives was MMP‐2 and/or MMP‐9 identified. Also, no difference in the μTBS was measured for the inhibitor‐modified and the control inhibitor‐free adhesives after 6 months of water storage. It is concluded that in contrast to etch‐and‐rinse adhesives, the involvement of endogenous MMP‐2 and MMP‐9 in the bond‐degradation process is minimal for mild self‐etch adhesives.     

Does inhibition of proteolytic activity improve adhesive luting?

Endogenous enzymes may be involved in the biodegradation of adhesive restoration–tooth interfaces. Inhibitors of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) have been suggested to retard the bond‐degradation process. Limited data are available on whether composite cements may also benefit from MMP inhibitors. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the effect of two MMP inhibitors – chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX) and galardin – on the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of two self‐adhesive composite cements to dentin. Ceramic specimens were cemented to bur‐cut dentin surfaces using the self‐adhesive composite cements RelyX Unicem 2 (3M ESPE) or Clearfil SA (Kuraray), or the etch‐and‐rinse composite cement Nexus 3 (Kerr) that served as the control. The surfaces were left untreated or were pretreated with MMP inhibitors (2% CHX or 0.2 mM galardin). The μTBS was determined ‘immediately’ and upon ageing (water storage for 6 months). Statistical analysis revealed a significant effect of the factors ‘composite cement’ and ‘storage’, as well as all interactions, but no effect of the MMP inhibitors. After 6 months of ageing, the μTBS decreased for all cements, except for the multistep etch‐and‐rinse luting composite when it was applied without MMP inhibitors. The MMP inhibitors could not prevent the decrease in μTBS upon ageing and therefore do not improve the luting durability of the composite cements tested.     

Bonding characteristics of self-etching adhesives to intact versus prepared enamel

Purpose: This study tested the null hypothesis that the preparation of the enamel surface would not affect the enamel microtensile bond strengths of self‐etching adhesive materials. Materials and Methods: Ten bovine incisors were trimmed with a diamond saw to obtain a squared enamel surface with an area of 8 × 8 mm. The specimens were randomly assigned to five adhesives: (1) ABF (Kuraray), an experimental two‐bottle self‐etching adhesive; (2) Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray), a two‐bottle self‐etching adhesive; (3) One‐Up Bond F (Tokuyama), an all‐in‐one adhesive; (4) Prompt L‐Pop (3M ESPE), an all‐in‐one adhesive; and (5) Single Bond (3M ESPE), a two‐bottle total‐etch adhesive used as positive control. For each specimen, one half was roughened with a diamond bur for 5 seconds under water spray, whereas the other half was left unprepared. The adhesives were applied as per manufacturers' directions. A universal hybrid composite resin (Filtek Z250, 3M ESPE) was inserted in three layers of 1.5 mm each and light‐cured. Specimens were sectioned in X and Y directions to obtain bonded sticks with a cross‐sectional area of 0.8 ± 0.2 mm². Sticks were tested in tension in an Instron at a cross‐speed of 1 mm per minute. Statistical analysis was carried out with two‐way analysis of variance and Duncan's test at p <. 05. Ten extra specimens were processed for observation under a field‐emission scanning electron microscope. Results: Single Bond, the total‐etch adhesive, resulted in statistically higher microtensile bond strength than any of the other adhesives regardless of the enamel preparation (unprepared = 31.5 MPa; prepared = 34.9 MPa, not statistically different at p < 05). All the self‐etching adhesives resulted in higher microtensile bond strength when enamel was roughened than when enamel was left unprepared. However, for ABF and for Clearfil SE Bond this difference was not statistically significant at p > 05. When applied to ground enamel, mean bond strengths of Prompt L‐Pop were not statistically different from those of Clearfil SE Bond and ABF. One‐Up Bond F did not bond to unprepared enamel. Commercial self‐etching adhesives performed better on prepared enamel than on unprepared enamel. The field‐emission scanning electron microscope revealed a deep interprismatic etching pattern for the total‐etch adhesive, whereas the self‐etching systems resulted in an etching pattern ranging from absent to moderate. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE For the recently introduced all‐in‐one self‐etching dental adhesives, instrumentation of enamel may be critical for their ability to optimally bond to enamel.     

终末冲洗方案对根管封闭剂与根管壁牙本质粘接强度的影响

目的：比较不同终末冲洗方案对根管封闭剂 AH Plus 及 GuttaFlow 与根管壁牙本质之间粘接强度的影响。方法：60颗单根离体人牙截冠后用冠向下法进行常规根管机械化学预备,按终末冲洗方案随机分为3组（n ＝20）。组1：17％乙二胺四乙酸（EDTA）＋2％氯己定（CHX）;组2：5．25％次氯酸钠（NaOCl）＋17％ EDTA;组3：0．9％生理盐水（NS）对照组。每组根据使用的根管封闭剂分为2个亚组（n ＝10）：组 a．AH Plus;组 b．GuttaFlow。每个牙根自冠方向根方获取3个厚度约为2mm 的水平切片进行薄片推出实验。体视显微镜下观察断裂形式。结果：3种冲洗方案,AH Plus 的粘接强度均显著高于GuttaFlow（P ＜0．05）。使用 AH Plus 根管充填时,组1、组2和组3的粘接强度分别为（5．37±2．80）MPa、（8．81±4．38） MPa、（9．07±2．77）MPa（组1与组2或组3比较,P ＜0．05,组2与组3间比较,P ＞0．05）。使用 GuttaFlow 根管充填时,组1、组2和组3粘接强度分别为（1．40±0．59）MPa、（1．26±0．62）MPa 和（1．05±0．27）MPa（两两比较,P ＞0．05）。各组试件均以混合型断裂为主要断裂方式,但 GuttaFlow 组内粘接型断裂形式所占比例显著高于 AH Plus 组。结论：GuttaFlow 对牙本质的粘接强度显著低于 AH Plus。17％ EDTA ／2％ CHX 终末冲洗方案可显著降低 AH Plus 与根管壁牙本质的粘接强度,但对 GuttaFlow 的粘接性能无显著影响。     

不同黏结方法和不同桩道部位对纤维桩黏结强度的影响

目的:比较不同黏结方法在不同桩道部位对纤维桩黏结剪切强度的影响。方法:选取42颗离体上颌中切牙,根管治疗桩道预备后根据不同的黏结方法随机分为6组,Ⅰ组为全酸蚀黏结剂Luxabond+自黏结树脂水门汀Rely X TM Unicem,Ⅱ组为全酸蚀黏结剂Luxabond+双固化树脂水门汀Luxacore,Ⅲ组为自酸蚀黏结剂Contax+自黏结树脂水门汀 Rely X TM Unicem,Ⅳ组为自酸蚀黏结剂Contax+双固化树脂水门汀Luxacore,Ⅴ组为自黏结树脂水门汀Rely X TM Unicem,Ⅵ组为双固化树脂水门汀Luxacore。纤维桩黏固后行薄片推出实验,并在扫描电镜下观察黏结界面及根管内壁的微观形态。采用SPSS13.0软件包对数据进行统计学分析。结果:不同黏结方法纤维桩的黏结强度差异具有显著性(P<0.05),第Ⅰ组和第Ⅲ组的黏结强度最高。扫描电镜观察,Ⅰ组和Ⅱ组的黏结界面有树脂突形成,黏结界面也更加致密。结论:自黏结树脂水门汀Rely XTM Unicem若配合使用全酸蚀及自酸蚀黏结剂,可显著提高纤维桩的黏结强度。     

Influence of ageing on self‐etch adhesives: one‐step vs. two‐step systems

The aim of this study was to evaluate microtensile bond strength (μTBS) to dentine, interfacial nanoleakage expression, and stability after ageing, of two‐step vs. one‐step self‐etch adhesives. Human molars were cut to expose middle/deep dentine, assigned to groups (n = 15), and treated with the following bonding systems: (i) Optibond XTR (a two‐step self‐etch adhesive; Kerr), (ii) Clearfil SE Bond (a two‐step self‐etch adhesive; Kuraray), (iii) Adper Easy Bond (a one‐step self‐etch adhesive; 3M ESPE), and (iv) Bond Force (a one‐step self‐etch adhesive; Tokuyama). Specimens were processed for μTBS testing after 24 h, 6 months, or 1 yr of storage in artificial saliva at 37°C. Nanoleakage expression was examined in similarly processed additional specimens. At baseline the μTBS results ranked in the following order: Adper Easy Bond = Optibond XTR ≥Clearfil SE = Bond Force, and interfacial nanoleakage analysis showed Clearfil SE Bond = Adper Easy Bond = Optibond XTR> Bond Force. After 1 yr of storage, Optibond XTR, Clearfil SE Bond, and Adper Easy Bond showed higher μTBS and lower interfacial nanoleakage expression compared with Bond Force. In conclusion, immediate bond strength, nanoleakage expression, and stability over time were not related to the number of steps of the bonding systems, but to their chemical formulations.     

Effect of phytic acid used as etchant on bond strength,smear layer,and pulpal cells

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of phytic acid (IP6), used as etchant, on resin–dentin bond strength, smear layer removal, and the viability of pulpal cells. Flat dentin surfaces with smear layer were etched with 1% IP6 for 60, 30, or 15 s; in the control group 37% phosphoric acid (PA) was used. Dentin surfaces were rinsed, blot‐dried, and bonded with an etch‐and‐rinse adhesive, followed by composite build‐ups. The specimens were subjected to tensile testing after 24 h of water storage at 37°C, and failure modes were determined using scanning electron microscopy. The effectiveness of IP6 to remove the smear layer was observed using scanning electron microscopy. To evaluate the effect on pulpal cells, solutions of 0.1 and 0.01% IP6 and of 3.7 and 0.37% PA were prepared and rat pulpal cells were treated with these solutions for 6 and 24 h. Cell viability was measured using the 3‐(4,5‐dimethylthiazol‐2‐yl)‐2,5‐diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay. The results demonstrated that all application times of IP6 produced bond‐strength values that were significantly higher than that of the control. Phytic acid effectively removed the smear layer and plugs, thus exposing the collagen network. Phytic acid had a minimal effect on pulpal cells, whereas PA resulted in a marked decrease in their viability.     

Effect of mucoprotein on the bond strength of resin composite to human dentin

The purpose of this study was to test the bond strength and analyze the morphology of the dentin-adhesive interface of two etch and rinse and two self-etch adhesive systems with two kinds of artificial saliva (with and without 450 mg/L mucin) contamination under different conditions of decontaminating the interface. Bonded specimens were sectioned perpendicularly to the bonded surface in 1-mm thick slabs. These 1-mm thick slabs were remounted in acrylic blocks and sectioned in sticks perpendicular to the bonding interfaces with a 1-mm² area. Nine specimens from each condition were tested after 24 h on a testing machine (Instron) at a speed of 0.5 mm/min for a total of 360 specimens. Mean and standard deviations of bond strength (MPa) were calculated. ANOVA showed significant differences as well as Fisher’s PLSD intervals (p < 0.05). The following values are the results for different groups: Control group 34–60 MPa, saliva without mucin 0–52 MPa, and saliva with mucin 0–57 MPa. Failure sites were mixed and adhesive failure was common for the low bond strength results. P&BNT with ideal conditions and following the manufacturer’s instructions (control) had the highest bond strengths and the dentin-adhesive interface exhibited an ideal morphology of etch-and-rinse system. SEM gave complementary visual evidence of the effect in the dentin/adhesive interface structure with some contaminated conditions compared with their respective control groups. This in vitro artificial saliva model with and without mucin showed that an organic component of saliva could increase or decrease the bond strength depending on the specific bonding agent and decontamination procedure.