ABSTRACT
This in vitrostudy evaluated the immediate and 6 months microshear bond strength (µSBS) of different adhesive systems to sound and eroded dentin. Sixty bovine incisors were embedded in acrylic resin and ground to obtain flat buccal dentin surfaces. Specimens were randomly allocated into two groups: sound dentin (immersion in artificial saliva) and eroded dentin (erosive challenge following a pH cycling model comprising 4 ×/day Sprite Light® drink for 10 days). Then, specimens were reassigned according to the adhesive system: etch-and-rinse adhesive (Adper Single Bond), two-step self-etch system (Clearfil SE Bond), or one-step self-etch adhesive (Adper Easy One). Polyethylene tubes with an internal diameter of 0.76 mm were placed over pre-treated dentin and filled with resin composite (Z250). Half of the specimens were evaluated by the µSBS test after 24 h, and the other half 6 months later, after water storage at 37°C. Failure mode was evaluated using a stereomicroscope (400×). Data were analyzed by three-way repeated measures analysis of variance and Tukey’s post hoc tests (α = 0.05). After 6 months of water aging, marked reductions in µSBS values were observed, irrespective of the substrate. The µSBS values for eroded dentin were lower than those obtained for sound dentin. No difference in bonding effectiveness was observed among adhesive systems. For all groups, adhesive/mixed failure was observed. In conclusion, eroded dentin compromises the bonding quality of adhesive systems over time.
Subject(s)
Animals , Cattle , Dental Bonding/methods , Dental Cements/chemistry , Dentin/drug effects , Tooth Erosion , Composite Resins/chemistry , Dental Restoration Failure , Materials Testing , Random Allocation , Resin Cements/chemistry , Saliva, Artificial/chemistry , Shear Strength/drug effects , Surface Properties/drug effects , Time Factors , Water/chemistryABSTRACT
This in vitro study evaluated the bond strength of adhesive restorative materials to sound and eroded dentin. Thirty-six bovine incisors were embedded in acrylic resin and ground to obtain flat buccal dentin surfaces. Specimens were randomly allocated in 2 groups: sound dentin (immersion in artificial saliva) and eroded dentin (pH cycling model - 3× / cola drink for 7 days). Specimens were then reassigned according to restorative material: glass ionomer cement (KetacTM Molar Easy Mix), resin-modified glass ionomer cement (VitremerTM) or adhesive system with resin composite (Adper Single Bond 2 + Filtek Z250). Polyethylene tubes with an internal diameter of 0.76 mm were placed over the dentin and filled with the material. The microshear bond test was performed after 24 h of water storage at 37ºC. The failure mode was evaluated using a stereomicroscope (400×). Bond strength data were analyzed with two-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc tests (α = 0.05). Eroded dentin showed bond strength values similar to those for sound dentin for all materials. The adhesive system showed the highest bond strength values, regardless of the substrate (p < 0.0001). For all groups, the adhesive/mixed failure prevailed. In conclusion, adhesive materials may be used in eroded dentin without jeopardizing the bonding quality. It is preferable to use an etch-and-rinse adhesive system because it shows the highest bond strength values compared with the glass ionomer cements tested.