ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate dentin permeability after dentin hypersensitivity treatments: fluoride, adhesive system, and collagen deproteinization with and without Nd:YAG laser exposure, and after erosive and abrasive challenges. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dentin permeability was assessed by measuring dentinal fluid flow using a permeability device. Eighty bovine dentin specimens (6 mm diameter/1 mm thickness) had permeability measured in the presence of the smear layer and after removal of the smear layer by ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). They were then divided into eight groups according to treatment (n = 10): Group C, control; Group L, Nd:YAG laser; Group F, fluoride; Group FL, fluoride plus Nd:YAG laser; Group A, adhesive; Group AL, adhesive plus Nd:YAG laser; Group D, 10% NaOCl plus adhesive; and group DL, NaOCl plus adhesive plus Nd:YAG laser. Nd:YAG laser was irradiated at 60 mJ/pulse/10 Hz/47.7 J/cm2/1 W and applied freehanded without contact for 60 sec. Permeability was measured 24 h after the treatments. The specimens were exposed to erosive and abrasive challenges for 5 days. Erosive challenge was done by immersion in Coca-Cola, four times a day/90 sec each. After the first and last erosive challenge of the day, the abrasive challenge was conducted by brushing the specimens (24,000 cycles/3.8 cm range/200 g weight), and permeability was measured again. Results were analyzed statistically using two factor ANOVA and Tukey tests (α = 0.05). RESULTS: With the exception of groups FL and A, all treatments reduced permeability. A significant reduction in permeability was seen when the treatments were combined with laser exposure. The association of adhesive and Nd:YAG laser led to the lowest rate of permeability after 24 h. NaOCl-induced deproteinization associated with Nd:YAG laser showed the lowest permeability rate after erosive/abrasive challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Dentin hypersensitivity treatments reduced dentin permeability when associated with Nd:YAG laser, even after erosive/abrasive challenges.
Subject(s)
Dentin Permeability/physiology , Lasers, Solid-State , Sodium Hypochlorite/pharmacology , Animals , Cattle , Dentin/drug effects , Dentin Permeability/drug effects , Dentin Permeability/radiation effects , In Vitro Techniques , Lasers , Longitudinal StudiesABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To evaluate the cohesive strength between composite and different light-curing characterizing materials (LCCM), which were prepared using the intrinsic technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred composite specimens were made by using a prefabricated Teflon device, and a layer of LCCM was applied at the interface. The specimens were divided into 5 groups (n = 20): group 1 (control), no LCCM was used; group 2: application of White Kolor Plus Pigment (Kerr) LCCM; group 3: White Tetric Color Pigment (Ivoclar/Vivadent) LCCM; group 4: Brown Kolor Plus Pigment (Kerr) LCCM; group 5: Black Tetric Color Pigment (Ivoclar/Vivadent) LCCM. All materials were used according to the manufacturers' instructions. Specimens were submitted to a tensile test in a universal testing machine (EMIC DL-200MF) to evaluate the cohesive strength at the composite interface. Data were subjected to one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α = 5%). RESULTS: ANOVA showed a p-value = 0.0001, indicating that there were significant differences among the groups. The mean values in MPa (± standard deviation) obtained for the groups were: G1: 28.5 (± 2.74)a; G2: 23.5 (± 2.47)b; G3: 20.3 (± 2.49)b; G4: 10.5 (± 2.40)c; G5: 9.66 (± 3.06)c. The groups with the same letters presented no significant differences. The control group presented statistically significantly higher cohesive strengths when compared to the other groups. The groups in which Brown Kolor Plus Pigment and Black Tetric Color Pigment LCCM were used showed significantly lower cohesive strengths when compared to the groups in which White Kolor Plus Pigment and White Tetric Color Pigment LCMM were used. CONCLUSION: The use of LCCM produced with the intrinsic technique reduced the cohesive strength of composite.
Subject(s)
Coloring Agents/chemistry , Composite Resins/chemistry , Dental Materials/chemistry , Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate/chemistry , Dental Stress Analysis/instrumentation , Humans , Light-Curing of Dental Adhesives , Materials Testing , Methacrylates/chemistry , Polyethylene Glycols/chemistry , Polymethacrylic Acids/chemistry , Polyurethanes/chemistry , Stress, Mechanical , Surface Properties , Tensile StrengthABSTRACT
Composite restorations have higher failure rates, more recurrent caries and increased frequency of replacement as compared to dental amalgam. Penetration of bacterial enzymes, oral fluids, and bacteria into the crevices between the tooth and composite undermines the restoration and leads to recurrent decay and failure. The gingival margin of composite restora tions is particularly vulnerable to decay and at this margin, the adhesive and its seal to dentin provides the primary barrier between the prepared tooth and the environment. The intent of this article is to examine physico-chemical factors that affect the integrity and durability of the adhesive/dentin interfacial bond; and to explore how these factors act synergistically with mechanical forces to undermine the composite restoration. The article will examine the various avenues that have been pursued to address these problems and it will explore how alterations in material chemistry could address the detrimental impact of physico-chemical stresses on the bond formed at the adhesive/dentin interface.