ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To assess amounts of residual dentine retained after using three excavation techniques; the microtensile bond strengths (microTBS) to residual dentine, comparing etch-rinse vs. self-etching adhesives. METHODS: 42 carious molars were subdivided (N=21) dependent upon adhesive/composite system (Adper Scotchbond 1XT and Filtek Supreme vs. Filtek Silorane adhesive and composite). Dividing into three (N=7), dependent upon caries excavation technique employed (hand vs. chemo-mechanical: Carisolv gel vs. experimental enzymatic gel (SFC-V)), caries removal was assessed using visual/tactile criteria and in situ autofluorescence (AF) confocal fibre-optic micro-endoscopy (CFOME). Post-restoration/four-week hydrated storage, four 0.9 mm(2) beams per tooth underwent microTBS testing/microscopic analysis of fractured surfaces. Three cavities from each excavation group were analysed using SEM. RESULTS: SEM revealed surface roughness with smear layer occluding tubule orifices in hand-excavated samples and a reduced, variable smear layer for both chemo-mechanical systems. CFOME AF assessment indicated hand excavation left sound dentine, Carisolv left affected dentine and SFC-V slightly under-prepared clinically. Mean microTBS values from etch-rinse samples (27 MPa (SD 3.9), hand; 22 MPa (SD 5.1), Carisolv; 26 MPa (SD 4.4), SFC-V) showed statistical differences between hand and Carisolv groups. Mean microTBS data for self-etch samples (22 MPa (SD 3.3), hand; 27 MPa (SD 6.1), Carisolv; 25 MPa (SD 4.7), SFC-V) showed significant differences between hand and Carisolv, and hand vs. SFC-V. Failure loci distribution in etch-rinse samples was between dentine-adhesive, within adhesive and within composite whereas self-etch samples exhibited failure predominantly between adhesive and composite. CONCLUSIONS: Data indicated that all null hypotheses were disproved.
