ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Introduction and Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of Er:YAG (L) and diamond drills (DD) on: 1) the microshear bond strength (MPa); 2) the adhesive interface of two-step (TS) - Adper Scotchbond Multipurpose and one-step (OS) adhesives - Adper EasyOne, both from 3M ESPE. Material and methods: According to the preparation condition and adhesives, the samples were divided into four groups: DD_TS (control); DD_OS; L_TS and L_OS. 60 bovine incisors were randomly divided into experimental and groups: 40 for microshear bond strength (n = 10) and 20 for the adhesive interface morphology [6 to measure the thickness of the hybrid layer (HL) and length of tags (t) by CLSM (n = 3); 12 to the adhesive interface morphology by SEM (n = 3) and 2 to illustrate the effect of the instruments on dentine by SEM (n = 1)]. To conduct the microshear bond strength test, four cylinders (0.7 mm in diameter and 1 mm in height with area of adhesion of 0.38 mm) were constructed with resin composite (Filtek Z350 XT - 3M ESPE) on each dentin surface treated by either L or DD and after adhesives application. Microshear bond strength was performed in universal testing machine (EMIC 2000) with load cell of 500 kgf and a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm / min. Adhesive interface was characterized by thickness of hybrid layer (HL) and length of tags (t) in nm, with the aid of UTHSCSA ImageTool software. Results: Microshear bond strength values were: L_TS 34.10 ± 19.07, DD_TS 24.26 ± 9.35, L_OS 33.18 ± 12.46, DD_OS 21.24 ± 13.96. Two-way ANOVA resulted in statistically significant differences only for instruments (p = 0.047). Mann-Whitney identified the instruments which determined significant differences for HL thickness and tag length (t). Concerning to the adhesive types, these differences were only observed for (t). Conclusion: It can be concluded that 1) laser Er:YAG results in higher microshear bond strength values regardless of the adhesive system (TS and OS); 2) the tags did not significant affect the microshear bond strength; 3) the adhesive interface was affected by both the instruments for cavity preparation and the type of adhesive system used.
ABSTRACT
Este estudo tem como objetivo avaliar o efeito de laser de Er: YAG (L) e ponta diamantada (B) sobre a força de resistência ao microcisalhamento (MPa) e o efeito sobre a interface adesiva de adesivos condiciona e lava (CL) Adper Scotchbond Multiuso e autocondicionante (CS) Adper EasyOne, ambos da 3M ESPE. Foram constituídos 4 grupos segundo instrumentos e adesivos: B_CL (controle); B_CS; L_CL e L_CS. 60 incisivos bovinos foram randomicamente divididos nos experimentos e grupos: 40 para força de resistência ao microcisalhamento (n=10) e 20 para morfologia da interface adesiva (6 para mensuração da espessura da camada hibrida (CH) e comprimento de tags (t) por MLCF (n=3); 12 para morfologia da interface adesiva por MEV (n=3) e 2 para ilustração o efeito dos instrumentos sobre dentina por MEV (n=1). Para o ensaio de microcisalhamento foram confeccionados 4 cilindros de resina composta Filtek Z350 XT 3M ESPE (0,7 mm de diâmetro por 1 mm de altura e área de adesão de 0,38 mm2 ) sobre cada superfície de dentina tratada pelos instrumentos e adesivos. O ensaio de resistência de união ao microcisalhamento foi realizado em máquina de ensaio universal EMIC 2000, com célula de carga de 500 Kgf e velocidade de 0,5 mm/min. A interface adesiva foi caracterizada pela espessura da camada hibrida (CH) e comprimento de tags (t) em µm, com o software UTHSCSA Imagetool. Os valores de resistência adesiva ao microcisalhamento foram L_CL 34,10 ± 19,07 MPa, B_CL 24,26 ± 9,35 MPa, L_CN 33,18 ± 12,46 MPa, B_CN 21,24 ± 13,96 MPa. Anova two-way resultou em diferença estatisticamente significativa somente para instrumentos (p=0,047). Teste de Mann-Whitney identificou os instrumentos determinam diferenças significativas para de espessura de CH e comprimento de (t). Para adesivos estas diferenças só foram observadas para (t). Pode-se concluir que 1) Laser de Er:YAG resulta em maiores valores de resistência adesiva ao microcisalhamento, independente do sistema adesivo utilizado (CL ou CS). 2) Os tags não tem efeito significativo na resistência adesiva ao microcisalhamento. 3) A interface adesiva é afetada tanto pelos instrumentos utilizados para o preparo cavitário como pelo tipo de sistema adesivo empregado
This study aims to evaluate the effect of Er: YAG (L) and bur (B) on the strength of resistance microshear (MPa) and the effect on the interface adhesive stickers and wash conditions (CL) - Adper Scotchbond Multipurpose and self (CS) - Adper EasyOne, both from 3M ESPE. Were formed 4 groups according tools and adhesives: B_CL (control); B_CS; L_CL and L_CS. 60 bovine incisors were randomly divided into experimental and groups: 40 to force microshear resistance (n = 10) and 20 for the adhesive interface morphology (6 to measure the thickness of the hybrid layer (CH) and length of tags (t) by MLCF (n = 3); 12 to the adhesive interface morphology by SEM (n = 3) and 2 to illustrate the effect of the instruments on dentine by SEM (n = 1). Microshear For testing four cylinders were fabricated composite Filtek Z350 XT - 3M ESPE (0.7 mm in diameter and 1 mm in height and area of adhesion of 0.38 mm) on each dentin surface treated by tools and adhesives. Testing of bond strength was performed in microshear FDMS universal testing machine 2000 with a load cell of 500 kgf and a speed of 0.5 mm / min. Adhesive interface was characterized by layer thickness hybrid (HC) and length of tags (t) in nm, with software UTHSCSA ImageTool. Values of bond strength to microshear L_CL were 34.10 ± 19.07, 24.26 ± 9.35 B_CL, L_CN 33.18 ± 12.46, 21.24 ± 13.96 B_CN. Anova two- way resulted in statistically significant only for instruments (p = 0.047). Mann-Whitney identified instruments to determine significant differences CH thickness and length (t). adhesives for these differences were only observed for (t). It can be concluded that 1) Laser Er: YAG results in higher bond strength to the microshear, regardless of the adhesive system (CL and CS). 2) The tags have no significant effect on bond strength to microshear. 3) The adhesive interface is affected by both instruments for cavity preparation and the type of adhesive system used