2017
DOI: 10.1590/0103-6440201700879
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: The aim of this study was to evaluate the μTBS in different dentin substrates and water-storage periods. Twenty-four dentin blocks obtained from sound third molars were randomly divided into 3 groups: Sound dentin (Sd), Caries-affected dentin (Ca) and Caries-infected dentin (Ci). Dentin blocks from Ca and Ci groups were subjected to artificial caries development (S. mutans biofilm). The softest carious tissue was removed using spherical drills under visual inspection with Caries Detector solution (Ca group). I… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
22
0
3

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
2
22
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…In the present study, sound dentin showed statistically significantly higher mean micro-shear bond strength (µSBS) than that of caries affected dentin at p<0.05. This finding was in agreement with Costa et al and also with Yoshiyama et al This may be attributed to the fact that caries affected dentin consists mostly of weaker demineralized structure which is porous with high water content and decreased mechanical properties, and the dentinal tubules found were filled with acid resistant mineral deposits which limited and decreased adhesive resin infiltration, and formed an unusual structure of the hybrid layer in the demineralized dentin surface, that is thicker as a result of deep monomer penetration [6,13,16] . In contrast, Shadman et al found that there were no statistical significant difference in bond strength between sound and caries affected dentin [6] .…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 82%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In the present study, sound dentin showed statistically significantly higher mean micro-shear bond strength (µSBS) than that of caries affected dentin at p<0.05. This finding was in agreement with Costa et al and also with Yoshiyama et al This may be attributed to the fact that caries affected dentin consists mostly of weaker demineralized structure which is porous with high water content and decreased mechanical properties, and the dentinal tubules found were filled with acid resistant mineral deposits which limited and decreased adhesive resin infiltration, and formed an unusual structure of the hybrid layer in the demineralized dentin surface, that is thicker as a result of deep monomer penetration [6,13,16] . In contrast, Shadman et al found that there were no statistical significant difference in bond strength between sound and caries affected dentin [6] .…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 82%
“…Those two methods were not fully reliable, so a more confirmatory method using caries detection dye was used in this study, in which dye stains the outer surface that contained caries infected dentin and facilitate its removal by excavation. Many reports have proven that specifically Seek Caries Indicator had no effect on adhesive bond strength, this was why it was selected to be used in the current study [6,12,13] .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is due to the weaker structure of the demineralized caries-affected dentin that limits adhesive infiltration because of the tubules filled with acid-resistant mineral deposits and to the unusual conformation of the hybrid layer, which is commonly thicker. Costa et al 10 , showed low resin tags formation with short penetration into demineralized dentin regions and the increasing water content and the more permeable condition of caries-affected dentin are concerns that may compromise bonding quality/stability over time when using hydrophilic adhesives systems [10][11][12] .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Each tooth was sectioned into 10 beams for measurement of microtensile bond strength, for a total of 40 beams per group. 13,14 Group distributions and samples were performed according to Table 3.…”
Section: Microtensile Assaymentioning
confidence: 99%