Journal of Adhesive Dentistry最新文献

Purpose: This study evaluated dentin bond strength, failure mode, interface morphology, adhesive infiltration into dentin, and marginal adaptation of bulk-fill composites used with different adhesives.

Materials and methods: Third molars received occlusal class I cavities (4 mm x 4 mm x 4 mm) that were bulk-filled with Admira Fusion x-tra (Voco) or SonicFill 2 (Kerr) using four adhesives (Scotchbond Multipurpose, 3M Oral Care; Clearfil SE Bond, Kuraray Noritake; OptiBond All-In-One, Kerr; Futurabond U, Voco). Scotchbond was used with acid-etching, while the remaining adhesives were applied in self-etch mode. Sixty-four teeth were selected for the microtensile bond strength test (n = 8). Failure modes were analyzed with scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Interface morphology and adhesive infiltration (n = 3) were investigated using confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM). Marginal adaptation (n = 3) was also evaluated using SEM. Bond strength, failure mode, and adhesive infiltration data were analyzed for distribution and homocedasticity, followed by appropriate statistical analyses (α = 0.05).

Results: Regarding bond strength, no differences were found among adhesives for SonicFill; Clearfil showed a significantly lower mean value than did Scotchbond (p ≤ 0.05) for Admira; the two composites did not differ. Adhesive and mixed failures were observed for all groups. Scotchbond led to thicker hybrid layers with deeper adhesive infiltration as opposed to Futurabond. The groups Admira+Futurabond, SonicFill+Clearfil, and SonicFill+Futurabond presented the highest marginal discontinuity.

Conclusion: The tested bulk-fill composites did not affect dentin bonding. Scotchbond and Clearfil seem to be reliable for bonding SonicFill 2 to dentin. The performance of Futurabond was questionable, given its poor-quality interface and higher percentages of marginal gaps.

Purpose: To three-dimensionally evaluate the interfacial gap of bulk-fill resin composites applied in deep Class-I restorations with different layering techniques and curing modes.

Materials and methods: Ninety-six (n = 96) samples were prepared with standardized deep Class-I cavities and adhesive procedures. Four materials were tested: SDR (SDR), SonicFill2 (SF), Admira Fusion X-Tra (AFXT), Filtek Supreme XTE (FS). Four subgroups (n = 6) were created according to layering and curing techniques: 2+2mm increments with soft start curing (SG1), 2+2 mm with conventional curing (SG2), a 4-mm increment with soft start curing (SG3), a 4-mm increment with conventional curing (SG4). All samples underwent micro-CT scans; afterwards, voids surrounding the restorations automatically underwent a thresholding procedure (Mimics, Materialise; Geomagic Studio 12, 3D Systems) to analyze the 3D interfacial gap. Statistical analysis was performed using three-way ANOVA with Tukey's test (significance p < 0.05).

Results: Statistically significant differences were reported between materials, layering techniques and their interaction. No statistically significant differences were reported for polymerisation mode. Bulk-fill materials showed average interfacial gap volumes ranging from 0.031 mm3 to 0.200 mm3, while FS showed volumes ranging from 0.416 mm3 to 1200 mm3.

Conclusions: All bulk-fill materials performed statistically significantly better than did FS (p < 0.05), with no statistically significant differences between them. Curing mode did not influence interfacial gap volume in any group (p > 0.05), while bulk-filling vs layering influenced the volume of interfacial gaps only in the FS group, which performied better when incrementally applied. Regarding gap localisation, the floor of the cavity was the area with the highest likelihood of gaps in all samples.

Different kinds of interactions between the restorative material and mineralized dental tissues result in secondary caries around dental composites. Of these, the mechanical interactions have to be carefully investigated. Due to the elastic mismatch between dental tissues and the composite restoration, complex stresses and strains develop at their interface. This complex mechanical environment disturbs the demineralization-remineralization equilibrium of dental hard tissues. The fluid flow both over and within enamel and dentin, associated with their complex ultrastructure and mechanical behavior, is a key factor. It is known that external mechanical loading can indirectly promote the dissolution of enamel and dentin through a pumping action of cariogenic fluids in and out of microgaps at the interface between mineralized tissues and composite. Mechanical loading can also directly influence the physicochemical behavior of dental hard tissues by inducing complex strain and stress fields on the crystal scale. It is important to consider both the direct and indirect paths by which mechanical loading can influence the apatite dissolution kinetics. Therefore, a systematic approach should be used to investigate the mechanism of secondary caries formation considering the tooth-composite interface as a unique complex in which each element has an influence on the other.

Purpose: To systematically review the literature to evaluate whether the bond strength of resin-based materials to enamel is affected by deproteinizing agents.

Materials and methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA statement. PubMed, ISI Web of Science, Cochrane Library, SciELO, Scopus, LILACS, IBECS, and BVS databases were screened up to December 2020. Eligibility criteria included in vitro studies that reported the effect of a deproteinizing agent applied before or after acid etching on the immediate or long-term bond strength of resin-based materials to enamel. The meta-analysis was carried out using Review Manager (version 5.3.5). A global comparison was performed with the standardized mean difference based on random-effect models at a significance level of α = 0.05.

Results: A total of 23 studies were included in the meta-analysis. In all the studies, only the immediate bond strength was evaluated. The bond strength of the materials was improved by the application of NaOCl or papain prior to enamel etching with phosphoric acid (p ≤ 0.006). None of the deproteinizing agents had a significant effect when applied after etching with phosphoric acid (p ≥ 0.27).

Conclusions: Based on in vitro studies, deproteinization with sodium hypochlorite or papain-based agents increases the immediate bond strength of resin-based materials to enamel only when used prior to phosphoric-acid etching.

Purpose: To evaluate the effect of different concentrations of ethylene-diamine-tetra acetic acid (EDTA) on bond strength (BS) and nanoleakage (NL) of fiber posts bonded into root canals.

Materials and methods: Seventy-two single roots were endodontically treated and divided into six groups (n = 12), according to the combination of the following factors: surface treatment (no irrigation [control], 17% EDTA, or 24% EDTA), and composite cement applied with an adhesive used in a self-etch mode (Single Bond Universal/RelyX Ultimate [SB], 3M Oral Care; Ambar Universal/Allcem [AM], FGM). After fiber post cementation, six 1-mm-thick disks were obtained for each root. Push-out bond strength (BS) was evaluated using 8 specimens per group, and the other 4 specimens were used to examine nanoleakage (NL). Data from BS and NL of each adhesive were evaluated by two-way ANOVA (surface treatment vs root region) and Tukey's test (α = 0.05).

Results: The application of 17% and 24% EDTA did not influence the bond strengths of either adhesive. In general, the application of 17% and 24% EDTA increased NL values for both adhesives.

Conclusion: Pre-treatment with different concentrations of EDTA was not able to improve the adhesion of fiber posts into root canals with universal adhesives..

Purpose: The pretreatment of glass-ceramic before adhesive cementation can be performed with hydrofluoric acid (HF)/silanization (S) or with an ammonium polyfluoride-containing primer (APF). It can be modified by application of a silane-containing universal adhesive (UA) and/or additional silanization. The aim of this study was to evaluate the bond strength of composite cements to two different glass ceramics after different pretreatments and aging.

Materials and methods: Disks of leucite-reinforced glass-ceramic or lithium-disilicate glass-ceramic were pretreated with HF+S, HF+UA, HF+S+UA, APF, or APF+S, bonded in pairs with composite cement and sectioned into microsticks (n = 96/group). The microtensile bond strength was determined either after 24 h (n = 48) or after aging for 6 months in water (n = 48). Fracture patterns were analyzed at 50X magnification. Statistical evaluation was performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test, pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni's correction, and the chi-squared test (p < 0.05).

Results: Pretreatment with HF+UA or APF led to significantly lower bond strength compared to HF+S. Additional silanization after application of UA or APF resulted in a significant increase in bond strength. After aging, HF+UA groups showed significantly lower bond strengths, independent of additive silanization. Aging did not affect APF-pretreated leucite-reinforced glass-ceramic; for lithium-disilicate glass-ceramic, the bond strength dropped significantly. Additional silanization improved aging resistance for the respective groups.

Conclusion: Bond strength and its long-term stability depend on the ceramic used and on the pretreatment. An ammonium polyfluoride-containing primer seems to be a promising option compared to conventional pretreatment with hydrofluoric acid. Additive silanization improves the long-term stability of the microtensile bond strength.

Purpose: To compare the effect of different methods of cleaning residual composite cement from the surface of lithium-disilicate glass-ceramic on its bond strength.

Materials and methods: Blocks of lithium-silicate glass-ceramic (e.max CAD) were coated with composite cement. Blocks in a positive control (CO+) group received no cement; negative controls (CO-) received composite cement. After water storage (24 h), specimens were cleaned as follows (n = 20/group): BUR: grinding with a fine-grit diamond bur (20 s); ALUM: air abrasion with 50-µm alumina (10 s); GLASS: air abrasion with 50-µm glass beads (10 s); FURN: firing in ceramic furnace and cleaning with ethanol; SULF: immersion in sulfonic acid solution (1 h); HYFL: no additional treatment. All specimens were etched with hydrofluoric acid, aside from the CO- group, and treated with silane. A 1.5-mm diameter cement-filled tube was affixed to the specimens and light polymerized. Specimens were stored in 37°C water for 24 h (n = 10) or 90 days (n = 10). Shear bond strength was tested. Two-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey tests were performed. Specimens from each group were examined with SEM.

Results: Bond strength significantly differed according to surface cleaning method (p < 0.01) and storage time (p < 0.01), but their interaction was not significant (p = 0.264). Longer storage time decreased the bond strength. BUR, ALUM, GLASS, and FURN did not differ statistically significantly from CO+, but were significantly greater than CO-. SULF and HYFL did not differ statistically significantly from CO- and were significantly lower than CO+.

Conclusions: Cleaning composite cement with BUR, ALUM, GLASS, and FURN restored bond strengths to that of the positive control. However, only GLASS and FURN did not roughen the surface of the underlying lithium-silicate glass-ceramic.