- Email: [email protected]
Eighteen-month clinical evaluation of two dentin adhesives applied on dry vs moist dentin
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
15. Bloomfield SF, Smith-Burchell CA, Dalgleish AG. Evaluation of hypochlorite-releasing disinfectants against the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). J Hosp Infect 1990;15:273-8. 16. Bond WW, Favero NS, Peterson NJ, Ebert JW. Inactivation of hepatitis B virus by intermediate-to-high-level disinfectant chemicals. J Clin Micro 1983;18:535-8. 17. Thouati A, Deveaux E, Iost A, Behin P. Dimensional stability of seven elastomeric impression materials immersed in disinfectants. J Prosthet Dent 1996;76:8-14. 18. American National Standards Institute/American Dental Association Specification No. 19 for non-aqueous elastomeric dental impression materials. J Am Dent Assoc 1977;94:733-41. 19. Abdullah MA. Effect of frequency and amplitude of vibration on void formation in dies poured from polyvinyl siloxane impressions. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:490-4. 20. Council of Dental Materials, Instruments and Equipment. Revised American National Standards Institute/American Dental Association Specification No. 25 for dental gypsum products. J Am Dent Assoc 1981;102:351. 21. Morrow RM, Rudd KD, Rhoads JE. Dental laboratory procedures: complete dentures. Vol. 1. 2nd ed. St Louis: Mosby; 1986. p. 104. 22. Rios MP, Morgano SM, Stein RS, Rose L. Effect of chemical disinfectant solutions on the stability and accuracy of dental impression complex. J Prosthet Dent 1996;76:356-62.
Noteworthy Abstracts of the Current Literature
ABDULLAH
23. Vandewalle KS, Charlton DG, Schawartz RS, Reagan SE, Koeppen RG. Immersion disinfection of irreversible hydrocolloid impression with sodium hypochlorite. Part II: effect on gypsum. Int J Prosthodont 1994; 7:315-22. 24. Anasuvice KJ, editor. Phillip’s science of dental materials. 10th ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 1996. p. 194-6. Reprint requests to: DR MOHAMMED ALEEM ABDULLAH DEPARTMENT OF PROSTHETIC DENTAL SCIENCES COLLEGE OF DENTISTRY, KING SAUD UNIVERSITY P.O. BOX 60169, RIYADH 11545 SAUDI ARABIA FAX: 9821-873-7216 E-MAIL: [email protected] 0022-3913/$32.00 Copyright Ó 2006 by The Editorial Council of The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.03.019
Eighteen-month clinical evaluation of two dentin adhesives applied on dry vs moist dentin Perdigao J, Carmo AR, Geraldeli S. J Adhes Dent 2005;7:253-8.
Purpose: To evaluate the influence of substrate moisture on the clinical behavior of 2 dentin adhesives after 18 months. The null hypothesis tested was that drying dentin with air upon rinsing off the acid would not influence the clinical performance of two dentin adhesives as compared to leaving the preparation visibly moist. Materials and Methods: Thirty-five patients were enrolled in this study. One hundred twenty-eight restorations divided into 4 groups were inserted and evaluated at baseline: (1) NT/Moist - Prime & Bond NT, an acetone-based adhesive, applied on moist dentin; (2) NT/Dried - Prime & Bond NT applied on dentin dried with air for 3 to 4 s; (3) SB/Moist - Single Bond, an ethanol- and water-based adhesive, applied on moist dentin; (4) SB/Dried - Single Bond applied on dentin dried with air for 3 to 4 s. A microfilled composite resin was used for all restorations. Patients were recalled at 6 and 18 months. Results: At 18 months after initial placement, 110 restorations (86% recall rate) were re-evaluated. Retention rates at 18 months were 92% for NT/Moist, 93% for NT/Dried, 100% for SB/Moist, and 89% for SB/Dried. No statistically significant differences were found among groups for retention rate. Both NT/Moist and SB/ Moist resulted in a significant decrease in sensitivity to air from baseline to 18 months. When data were pooled for the variable ‘‘substrate moisture,’’ SB resulted in an overall retention rate of 95%, while NT resulted in a retention rate of 92% (statistically similar). The marginal adaptation with SB was significantly worse at 18 months than at baseline. Conclusion: The moisture level of the dentin substrate in noncarious cervical lesions does not influence retention of composite restorations, but moist conditions caused less sensitivity to air. When applied as per manufacturers’ instructions (moist dentin), both adhesives resulted in Class V retention rates exceeding the ADA 18-month full acceptance guidelines.—Reprinted with permission of Quintessence Publishing.
468
VOLUME 95 NUMBER 6
15. Bloomfield SF, Smith-Burchell CA, Dalgleish AG. Evaluation of hypochlorite-releasing disinfectants against the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). J Hosp Infect 1990;15:273-8. 16. Bond WW, Favero NS, Peterson NJ, Ebert JW. Inactivation of hepatitis B virus by intermediate-to-high-level disinfectant chemicals. J Clin Micro 1983;18:535-8. 17. Thouati A, Deveaux E, Iost A, Behin P. Dimensional stability of seven elastomeric impression materials immersed in disinfectants. J Prosthet Dent 1996;76:8-14. 18. American National Standards Institute/American Dental Association Specification No. 19 for non-aqueous elastomeric dental impression materials. J Am Dent Assoc 1977;94:733-41. 19. Abdullah MA. Effect of frequency and amplitude of vibration on void formation in dies poured from polyvinyl siloxane impressions. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:490-4. 20. Council of Dental Materials, Instruments and Equipment. Revised American National Standards Institute/American Dental Association Specification No. 25 for dental gypsum products. J Am Dent Assoc 1981;102:351. 21. Morrow RM, Rudd KD, Rhoads JE. Dental laboratory procedures: complete dentures. Vol. 1. 2nd ed. St Louis: Mosby; 1986. p. 104. 22. Rios MP, Morgano SM, Stein RS, Rose L. Effect of chemical disinfectant solutions on the stability and accuracy of dental impression complex. J Prosthet Dent 1996;76:356-62.
Noteworthy Abstracts of the Current Literature
ABDULLAH
23. Vandewalle KS, Charlton DG, Schawartz RS, Reagan SE, Koeppen RG. Immersion disinfection of irreversible hydrocolloid impression with sodium hypochlorite. Part II: effect on gypsum. Int J Prosthodont 1994; 7:315-22. 24. Anasuvice KJ, editor. Phillip’s science of dental materials. 10th ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 1996. p. 194-6. Reprint requests to: DR MOHAMMED ALEEM ABDULLAH DEPARTMENT OF PROSTHETIC DENTAL SCIENCES COLLEGE OF DENTISTRY, KING SAUD UNIVERSITY P.O. BOX 60169, RIYADH 11545 SAUDI ARABIA FAX: 9821-873-7216 E-MAIL: [email protected] 0022-3913/$32.00 Copyright Ó 2006 by The Editorial Council of The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.03.019
Eighteen-month clinical evaluation of two dentin adhesives applied on dry vs moist dentin Perdigao J, Carmo AR, Geraldeli S. J Adhes Dent 2005;7:253-8.
Purpose: To evaluate the influence of substrate moisture on the clinical behavior of 2 dentin adhesives after 18 months. The null hypothesis tested was that drying dentin with air upon rinsing off the acid would not influence the clinical performance of two dentin adhesives as compared to leaving the preparation visibly moist. Materials and Methods: Thirty-five patients were enrolled in this study. One hundred twenty-eight restorations divided into 4 groups were inserted and evaluated at baseline: (1) NT/Moist - Prime & Bond NT, an acetone-based adhesive, applied on moist dentin; (2) NT/Dried - Prime & Bond NT applied on dentin dried with air for 3 to 4 s; (3) SB/Moist - Single Bond, an ethanol- and water-based adhesive, applied on moist dentin; (4) SB/Dried - Single Bond applied on dentin dried with air for 3 to 4 s. A microfilled composite resin was used for all restorations. Patients were recalled at 6 and 18 months. Results: At 18 months after initial placement, 110 restorations (86% recall rate) were re-evaluated. Retention rates at 18 months were 92% for NT/Moist, 93% for NT/Dried, 100% for SB/Moist, and 89% for SB/Dried. No statistically significant differences were found among groups for retention rate. Both NT/Moist and SB/ Moist resulted in a significant decrease in sensitivity to air from baseline to 18 months. When data were pooled for the variable ‘‘substrate moisture,’’ SB resulted in an overall retention rate of 95%, while NT resulted in a retention rate of 92% (statistically similar). The marginal adaptation with SB was significantly worse at 18 months than at baseline. Conclusion: The moisture level of the dentin substrate in noncarious cervical lesions does not influence retention of composite restorations, but moist conditions caused less sensitivity to air. When applied as per manufacturers’ instructions (moist dentin), both adhesives resulted in Class V retention rates exceeding the ADA 18-month full acceptance guidelines.—Reprinted with permission of Quintessence Publishing.
468
VOLUME 95 NUMBER 6