Pre-treating dentin with chlorhexadine and CPP-ACP: self-etching and universal adhesive systems.

Acta Biomaterialia Odontologica Scandinavica Pub Date : 2016-07-01 eCollection Date: 2016-12-01 DOI:10.1080/23337931.2016.1203265
Ricardo Alves Dos Santos, Eliane Alves de Lima, Marcos Antônio Japiassu Resende Montes, Rodivan Braz
{"title":"Pre-treating dentin with chlorhexadine and CPP-ACP: self-etching and universal adhesive systems.","authors":"Ricardo Alves Dos Santos,&nbsp;Eliane Alves de Lima,&nbsp;Marcos Antônio Japiassu Resende Montes,&nbsp;Rodivan Braz","doi":"10.1080/23337931.2016.1203265","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> The aim of the present study was to compare the effect of pre-treating dentin with chlorhexidine, at concentrations of 0.2% and 2%, and remineralizing paste containing CPP-ACP (MI Paste - GC) on the bond strength of adhesive systems. <b>Material and methods:</b> In total, 80 slides of dentin were used. These slides were 2 mm thick and were obtained from bovine incisors. Standard cavities were created using diamond bur number 3131. In the control groups, a Scotchbond Universal Adhesive (SUA) self-etching adhesive system of 3M ESPE and a Clearfil SE Bond (CSE) adhesive system of Kuraray were applied, following the manufacturer's instructions. In the other groups, dentin was pretreated with chlorhexidine (0.2% and 2%) for 1 min and with MI Paste for 3 min. The cavities were restored with Z350 XT resin (3M ESPE). After 24 h of storage, the push-out test was applied at a speed of 0.5 mm/min. <b>Results:</b> The different dentin pretreatment techniques did not affect the intra-adhesive bond strength. There was a difference between treatment with MI Paste and chlorhexidine 0.2% in favor of the SUA, with values of 15.22 and 20.25 Mpa, respectively. <b>Conclusions:</b> The different pretreatment methods did not alter the immediate bond strength to dentin. Differences were only recorded when comparing the adhesives.</p>","PeriodicalId":6997,"journal":{"name":"Acta Biomaterialia Odontologica Scandinavica","volume":"2 1","pages":"79-85"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/23337931.2016.1203265","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Biomaterialia Odontologica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23337931.2016.1203265","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2016/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

Objective: The aim of the present study was to compare the effect of pre-treating dentin with chlorhexidine, at concentrations of 0.2% and 2%, and remineralizing paste containing CPP-ACP (MI Paste - GC) on the bond strength of adhesive systems. Material and methods: In total, 80 slides of dentin were used. These slides were 2 mm thick and were obtained from bovine incisors. Standard cavities were created using diamond bur number 3131. In the control groups, a Scotchbond Universal Adhesive (SUA) self-etching adhesive system of 3M ESPE and a Clearfil SE Bond (CSE) adhesive system of Kuraray were applied, following the manufacturer's instructions. In the other groups, dentin was pretreated with chlorhexidine (0.2% and 2%) for 1 min and with MI Paste for 3 min. The cavities were restored with Z350 XT resin (3M ESPE). After 24 h of storage, the push-out test was applied at a speed of 0.5 mm/min. Results: The different dentin pretreatment techniques did not affect the intra-adhesive bond strength. There was a difference between treatment with MI Paste and chlorhexidine 0.2% in favor of the SUA, with values of 15.22 and 20.25 Mpa, respectively. Conclusions: The different pretreatment methods did not alter the immediate bond strength to dentin. Differences were only recorded when comparing the adhesives.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用氯己定和CPP-ACP预处理牙本质:自蚀刻和通用粘合剂系统。
目的:比较0.2%和2%氯己定预处理牙本质与含CPP-ACP (MI paste - GC)再矿化膏对黏附体系结合强度的影响。材料与方法:共使用牙本质载玻片80张。这些载玻片厚度为2mm,取材于牛门牙。标准的空腔是用编号为3131的钻石制成的。在对照组中,按照制造商的说明,使用3M ESPE的Scotchbond Universal Adhesive (SUA)自蚀蚀剂系统和Kuraray的Clearfil SE Bond (CSE)粘合剂系统。其余组用氯己定(0.2%和2%)预处理牙本质1分钟,用MI膏体预处理3分钟。用Z350 XT树脂(3M ESPE)修复牙本质。储存24 h后,以0.5 mm/min的速度进行推出试验。结果:不同的牙本质预处理技术对牙本质内粘接强度无明显影响。MI膏体与0.2%氯己定处理的SUA值差异较大,分别为15.22 Mpa和20.25 Mpa。结论:不同的预处理方法对牙本质的直接结合强度没有影响。只有在比较粘接剂时才会记录差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Anti-demineralization effect of desensitizer containing copolymer and sodium fluoride on root dentin - a transverse microradiographic study. Fracture resistance of simulated immature teeth treated with a regenerative endodontic protocol. Debonding mechanism of zirconia and lithium disilicate resin cemented to dentin. The effect of antimicrobial additives on the properties of dental glass-ionomer cements: a review. An in vitro model to assess effects of a desensitising agent on bacterial biofilm formation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1