Adhesive performance of dentin bonding agents applied in vivo and in vitro. Effect of intrapulpal pressure and dentin depth.

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 1 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 significantly 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.

Effect of surface treatments on the spreading velocity of simplified adhesive systems

OBJECTIVES: To determine the roughness of glass surfaces submitted to different treatments and to correlate it with the spreading velocity of two adhesive systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Glass slides were used as substrates to evaluate the spreading velocity of Single Bond and Prime & Bond NT adhesive systems. Six different surface treatments were compared: 1) no treatment; 2) silanization (SL); 3) sandblasting (SB); 4) SB + SL; 5) 10 percent hydrofluoric acid treatment (HF); 6) HF + SL. Before and after treatments, surface roughness was measured by a profilometer (Ra, æm). Drop volumes (10 æl) of the adhesive systems were deposited onto substrates with a micropipette to observe materials spreading during 30s. Data were expressed in mm/s as spreading velocity. Statistical significances among groups were analyzed using one-way and two-way-ANOVA designs and the SNK test. RESULTS: Significant differences in spreading velocity were found between materials (p < 0.001) and among treatments (p < 0.001). Silanization decreased the spreading velocity for both adhesives in comparison to groups where it was not performed (p < 0.05). Differences in roughness were found only for SB surfaces that were rougher than the others (p < 0.05). Silanization decreased the roughness of SB surfaces (p < 0.05). Linear regression did not indicate any correlation between spreading velocity and roughness (R = 0.173). CONCLUSION: Although surface treatments yielded different roughness, they did not provide differences in the spreading velocity of the simplified bonding systems studied. Silanization decreased bonding systems' spreading velocities.

OBJETIVO: Determinar a rugosidade de superficies submetidas a diferentes tratamentos e correlacionar rugosidade com velocidade de escoamento de sistemas adesivos MATERIAL AND MÉTODOS: Lâminas de vidro foram utilizadas como substrato para avaliar a velocidade de escoamento dos sistemas adesivos Single Bond and Prime & Bond NT. Seis diferentes tratamentos de superfície foram comparados: 1- sem tratamento; 2 - silanização (SL); 3 - jateamento (J); 4 - J + SL; 5 - condicionamento com ácido fluorídrico a 10 por cento (HF); 6 - HF + SL. Antes e após os tratamentos, foi mensurada a rugosidade das superficies (Ra, æm). Gotas de 10 æl de adesivo foram despositadas sobre as superficies e as velocidades de escoamento foram observadas durante 30 seg. Dados de velocidade de escoamento foram expressos em mm/s. Significâncias estatísticas entre grupos foram analisadas pelos testes ANOVA (um e dois critérios) e SNK. RESULTADOS: Houve diferenças significantes na velocidade de escoamento entre materiais (p < 0.001) e entre tratamentos (p < 0.001). Silanização diminuiu a velocidade de escoamento para ambos os adesivos em comparação aos grupos não silanizados (p < 0.05). Houve diferença entre rugosidades inicial e final somente para o grupo jateado, que se apresentou como o mais rugoso (p < 0.05). Silanização diminuiu a rugosidade das superficies jateadas (p < 0.05). Regressão linear não indicou correlação entre velocidade de escoamento e rugosidade (R = 0.173). CONCLUSÕES: Embora os tratamentos de superfície tenham produzido diferentes rugosidades, não produziram diferenças na velocidade de escoamento dos sistemas adesivos estudados. Silanização diminuiu a velocidade de escoamento dos sistemas adesivos.

Effect of surface treatments on the spreading velocity of simplified adhesive systems.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the roughness of glass surfaces submitted to different treatments and to correlate it with the spreading velocity of two adhesive systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Glass slides were used as substrates to evaluate the spreading velocity of Single Bond and Prime & Bond NT adhesive systems. Six different surface treatments were compared: 1) no treatment; 2) silanization (SL); 3) sandblasting (SB); 4) SB + SL; 5) 10% hydrofluoric acid treatment (HF); 6) HF + SL. Before and after treatments, surface roughness was measured by a profilometer (Ra, microm). Drop volumes (10 microl) of the adhesive systems were deposited onto substrates with a micropipette to observe materials spreading during 30s. Data were expressed in mm/s as spreading velocity. Statistical significances among groups were analyzed using one-way and two-way-ANOVA designs and the SNK test. RESULTS: Significant differences in spreading velocity were found between materials (p < 0.001) and among treatments (p < 0.001). Silanization decreased the spreading velocity for both adhesives in comparison to groups where it was not performed (p < 0.05). Differences in roughness were found only for SB surfaces that were rougher than the others (p < 0.05). Silanization decreased the roughness of SB surfaces (p < 0.05). Linear regression did not indicate any correlation between spreading velocity and roughness (R = 0.173). CONCLUSION: Although surface treatments yielded different roughness, they did not provide differences in the spreading velocity of the simplified bonding systems studied. Silanization decreased bonding systems' spreading velocities.

Critical appraisal: adhesive-composite incompatibility, part I.

Apart from some questions related to the repairability of resin composite restorations, dentists have always assumed that methacrylate-based resins are compatible with each other. For example, there is no clinically relevant problem in using a microfilled composite to laminate a Class IV restoration made with a hybrid composite, even if they are not of the same brand or manufacturer. In the context of adhesive systems, we have always believed that resin composites, regardless of their type or composition, bond well to all types of bonding agents. However, unexpected debonding of self-cured, core buildup composites that had been bonded with single-bottle adhesive systems was reported about 5 years ago. Subsequent studies demonstrated that there were, indeed, compatibility problems between simplified adhesive systems and self- or dual-cured resin composites. Apparently, when such combinations are used, reduced bond strengths and subsequent failures at the resin-adhesive interface can occur because of adverse reactions between the acidic resin monomers, an integral part of the simplified adhesive systems, and the chemicals involved in the polymerization mechanism of the self- or dual-cured composites, particularly the basic tertiary amines. At least one research group has expanded the information on this issue by further investigating the mechanisms involved in this phenomenon. This group demonstrated that not only adverse chemical reactions but also the permeability of such simplified systems contribute to the compromised bonding. This issue has profound clinical implications in view of the wide use of self- and dual-cured composites as core buildup materials and in the bonding of indirect restorations and endodontic posts. Some of the most representative studies of this group are described in this Critical Appraisal. Part II will appear in the next issue of the Journal.

Adhesive-composite incompatibility, part II.

Apart from some questions related to the repairability of resin composite restorations, dentists have always assumed that methacrylate-based resins are compatible with each other. For example, there is no clinically relevant problem in using a microfilled composite to laminate a Class IV restoration made with a hybrid composite, even if they are not of the same brand or manufacturer. In the context of adhesive systems, we have always believed that resin composites, regardless of their type or composition, bond well to all types of bonding agents. However, unexpected debonding of self-cured, core buildup composites that had been bonded with single-bottle adhesive systems was reported about 5 years ago. Subsequent studies demonstrated that there were, indeed, compatibility problems between simplified adhesive systems and self- or dual-cured resin composites. Apparently, when such combinations are used, reduced bond strengths and subsequent failures at the resin-adhesive interface can occur because of adverse reactions between the acidic resin monomers, an integral part of the simplified adhesive systems, and the chemicals involved in the polymerization mechanism of the self- or dual-cured composites, particularly the basic tertiary amines.