Dentin bond strength evaluation of three adhesive systems

Dentin bond strength evaluation of three adhesive systems

d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 7 S ( 2 0 1 1 ) e1–e84 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com journal homepage: www.intl.elsevierhealth.com/journ...

366KB Sizes 3 Downloads 155 Views

d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 7 S ( 2 0 1 1 ) e1–e84

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.intl.elsevierhealth.com/journals/dema

Abstracts of the Academy of Dental Materials Annual Meeting, 13–15 October 2011, Bahia, Brazil

1 Resin-bond to root dentin: Effect of alveolar bone level

2 Dentin bond strength evaluation of three adhesive systems

M.L.L. Alves 1,∗ , F. Campos 2 , R.S. Sousa 1 , A.M.O. Dal-Piva 1 , I.L.R. Arrais 1 , M.A. Bottino 2 , R.O.A. Souza 1

C.B. André ∗ , G.M.B. Ambrosano, M. Giannini Piracicaba Dental School/State University of Campinas, Brazil

1

Federal University of Paraiba, Brazil 2 Federal State os São Paulo University, Brazil

Objective: To evaluate the effect of the alveolar bone level on the bond strength of fiber post luted to root dentine. The hypothesis was that bond strength is influenced by the quantity of root inserted in alveolar bone. Materials and methods: The canals of 30 single-root bovine roots (16 mm in length) were prepared at 12 mm using the preparation drill #3 (FGM, Brazil). Each root was embedded in acrylic resin and specimens were allocated into three groups (n = 10), considering the factor “alveolar bone level” (3 levels): Gr1 (control)-14 mm root inserted in the resin, Gr2-10 mm root inserted in the resin, Gr3-7 mm root inserted in the resin. Fiber posts (WhitePost/FGM) were treated with 37% phosphoric acid (15 s) and silane applied. The adhesive system (SBMP/3M ESPE) was applied according to manufacture’s recommendations. Fiber-posts #3 (White Post DC, FGM) were luted (All-Cem, FGM) and light-cured (40 s). Then, composite-resin (Llis, FGM) cores were prepared and each set of root/post/core was submitted to mechanical cycling (Erios, Brazil), for 1,000,000 cycles (84N, 4 Hz, inclination of 45◦ , water, 37 ◦ C). Each specimen was cut in 4 samples (1.8 mm in thickness), which were submitted to the push-out test in a universal testing machine (EMIC) (50 kgf, 1 mm/min). Data (MPa) were analyzed using ANOVA (1-way). Results: Mean (±SD) values were: G1 (3.8 ± 1.9 MPa), G2 (5.1 ± 1.6 MPa) and G3 (5.2 ± 1.8 MPa). The factor “alveolar bone level” was not statistically significant (p = 0.1548). The hypothesis was rejected. Conclusion: Bond strength of fiber posts luted to root dentin was not influenced by the alveolar bone level. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2011.08.404

Objectives: The objective of this in vitro study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength of three adhesive systems to human dentin. Materials and methods: Thirty human third molars had their occlusal enamel removed with a diamond saw (Buehler Ltd.) to expose the dentin surface at an average depth from the pulp. Dentin surfaces were abraded with SiC 600 paper, under cooling with water for 10 s, to standardize the smear layer and obtain flat dentin surfaces. Teeth were randomly divided into three experimental groups (n = 10): Gluma 2Bond (Heraeus Kulzer), Clearfil SE Protect (Kuraray Med.) and Peak Universal Bond (Ultradent Prod.). Adhesives were applied following the instructions of each manufacturer. Filtek Supreme composite blocks (3M ESPE) were incrementally built on dentin surfaces (6 mm thickness) and teeth were stored for 24 h at 37 ◦ C. Restored teeth were sectioned with a diamond saw under water lubrification to obtain bonded specimens (area of approximately 1.0 mm2 ), which were tested in a universal testing machine (EZ Test, Shimadzu). Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey test (˛ = 5%). Results: Groups

Mean

Standard deviation

Clearfil SE Protect Gluma 2Bond Peak Universal Bond

27.8 b 35.0 b 46.6 a

9.0 5.4 8.2

Groups having similar letters are not significantly different (p > 0.05). Conclusions: The peak adhesive showed higher bond strength to dentin than Clearfil Protect SE and Gluma 2Bond, which did not differ compared to each other. Support by FAPESP, Brazil (#2010/13599-0). doi:10.1016/j.dental.2011.08.405

0109-5641/$ – see front matter