Current Concepts On Adhesion To Dentin

Eick, J. David; Aj, Gwinnett; Pashley, David H.; Robinson, S.

doi:10.1177/10454411970080030501

Cited by 287 publications

(227 citation statements)

References 98 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

204

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies have demonstrated better sealing ability in enamel than in dentin margins. 6,[32][33] However, according to Eick and others, 34 with the evolution of adhesive systems, similar bonding values could be achieved in enamel and dentin, primarily after hybridization of the dentin tissues. In Class II composite restorations, no significant difference was found for margins located in enamel or dentin, regarding the sealing ability or microtensile bond strength of the interfaces.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cervical Microleakage in MOD Restorations: In Vitro Comparison of Indirect and Direct Composite

Duquia¹,

Osinaga²,

Demarco³

et al. 2006

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clinical RelevanceOne of the advantages reported for indirect composite restorations is the reduction of polymerization shrinkage, which could produce better marginal sealing. Although sealing of cervical enamel margins was slightly better for the indirect systems used, no difference between indirect and direct restorations was found for cervical margins in cementum/dentin. SUMMARYThis study compared microleakage between indirect composite inlays and direct composite restorations. Forty-eight standard inlay MOD cavities, with cervical margins located either in enamel or dentin, were prepared in extracted human third molars. The specimens were randomly divided into 3 groups (n=16). In the control group, the cavities were restored with the composite Filtek Z250 (3M ESPE). For the experimental groups, indirect restorations were made with the Artglass (Heraeus-Kulzer) or Belleglass HP (Kerr Laboratories) systems and cemented with the dual curing cement RelyX ARC (3M ESPE). The adhesive system Single Bond (3M ESPE) was applied on all groups. The specimens were submitted to thermolcycling, coated with nail varnish, then immersed in 2% basic fuchsine aqueous solution for 24 hours. The teeth were then sectioned and leakage scores were evaluated (40x), based on a standard ranking. Data were submitted to statistical analysis (Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests) with a 95% confidence level. No statistical difference was found between substrates (p=0.595), and the materials performed similarly in dentin (p=0.482). Direct restorations showed higher leakage than indirect restorations at the enamel margins (p=0.004). Within the limitations of this experimental design, overall leakage was similar between both substrates, while the indirect systems provided a better sealing than direct composites only in enamel.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cervical Microleakage in MOD Restorations: In Vitro Comparison of Indirect and Direct Composite

Duquia¹,

Osinaga²,

Demarco³

et al. 2006

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The homogenous and thorough resin infiltration and entanglement of exposed collagen fibrils in wet demineralized dentin are the primary factors critical in determining an adequate adhesive/dentin (a/d) hybrid layer [1][2][3]. BisGMA (Bisphenol-A-glycerolate (1-glycerol/ phenol) dimethacrylate), a widely used component in dentin adhesives has very good mechanical properties after curing, but this component is relatively hydrophobic and thus, does not adequately infiltrate the wet demineralized dentin collagen [4][5][6][7][8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of a solubility enhancer on penetration of hydrophobic component in model adhesives into wet demineralized dentin

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims-The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of a polymerizable solubility enhancer, poly (ethylene glycol) dimethacrylate (PEGDMA) in BisGMA/HEMA model adhesives on adhesive phase separation, adhesive penetration and structural integrity of adhesive/dentin (a/d) interfaces.Materials and methods-the occlusal one-third of the crown was removed from 10 unerupted human third molars, each tooth was separated in half by cutting perpendicular to the acid conditioned dentin surface and treated with BisGMA/HEMA model adhesives with and without PEGDMA. Fivemicron-thick sections of adhesive/dentin interface specimens were cut and stained with Goldner's trichrome for light microscopy. Companion slabs were analyzed with micro-Raman spectroscopy and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The macrophase separation in the model adhesives with/ without PEGDMA was also detected using cloud point measurements in the presence of water.Results-The addition of PEGDMA enhanced the water solubility/compatibility of the BisGMA/ HEMA model adhesives. Micro-Raman spectral analysis of the dentin/adhesive interface indicated that there was a gradual decrease in penetration of BisGMA component for model adhesive without PEGDMA, while homogeneous distribution of the hydrophobic BisGMA component was noted in the interface with adhesive containing PEGDMA. The addition of PEGDMA dramatically facilitated infiltration of the hydrophobic monomers into the wet demineralized dentin. The SEM and staining results showed that the addition of PEGDMA would also improve the integrity at the interface between pure adhesive and hybrid layers.Significance-The addition of PEGDMA could reduce phase separation, enhance the infiltration of BisGMA-based adhesives into the wet, demineralized dentin substrates, and promote homogeneous distribution of the hydrophobic component throughout the interface.

show abstract

“…These inadequacies can include incomplete alteration and/or removal of smear layer components due to composition (pH, osmolality) and strength of the acidic primer, and inadequate resin film thickness, requiring multiple layering techniques and changes in the monomer/water ratio, resulting in phase separations. [1][2][3]9,16,[19][20][21][22] Morphological and histological considerations, and other clinical factors causing inadequate bonding at the material/tooth surface interface, include cavity configuration (C-factor) and dentinal tubule/enamel rod orientation, capillary movement of dentinal tubular fluids, physical characteristics of the restorative material (filler loading, volumetric expansion, modulus of elasticity and polymerization contraction), inadequate margin adaptation of the restorative material during insertion, inappropriate barrier protection (dental rubber dam), tooth location, occlusal stresses/tooth flexure and patient age considerations. [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] In this study, since hybrid layer morphology was not evaluated microscopically, the specific nature of restoration failure (microleakage) for each adhesive system is unknown, although several factors were strongly suspected: inefficiency of acidic monomers in alteration of the smear layer for classic hybrid layer formation, cavity C-factor, orientation of dentinal tubules/enamel rods to the cementoenamel junction, use of acetone-based solvent primer systems and post-treatment stresses caused by polymerization contraction.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Single Step Adhesives on the Marginal Permeability of Class V Resin Composites

Owens¹,

Johnson²

2007

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYThis in vitro study evaluated the coronal and apical marginal microleakage of four self-etch, seventh generation adhesive systems.Sixty non-carious human molars were randomly assigned to four groups (n=12). Class V cavities were prepared on the facial or lingual surface of each tooth with coronal margins in enamel and apical margins in cementum (dentin) at the cementoenamel junction. The preparations were restored using four self-etch adhesive systems (iBond, G-Bond, Xeno IV and Clearfil S 3 Bond) and a control (no adhesive), followed by insertion of Gradia Direct microfilled hybrid resin composite. The teeth (specimens) were thermocycled 1,000 cycles, immersed in 1% methylene blue dye for 24 hours and invested in acrylic resin. The specimen blocks were then sectioned longitudinally, with dye penetration (microleakage) examined using a 20x binocular microscope. Coronal and apical margins were scored separately for microleakage using a 0-3 ordinal ranking system. Data were analyzed using non-parametric tests at a p<0.05 level of significance. A comparison of adhesive and control groups at the coronal and apical margins revealed that significant (p<.0001) differences were exhibited. At the coronal margin, Xeno IV revealed significantly less leakage than the other adhesives, with Clearfil S 3 Bond exhibiting significantly less leakage at the apical margin. Groups with no adhesive treatment (control) showed significantly greater leakage at both the coronal and apical margin locations. A Wilcoxon signed rank test showed no significant differences at the coronal compared to the apical margins of the four adhesive systems and control tested.

show abstract

Current Concepts On Adhesion To Dentin

Cited by 287 publications

References 98 publications

Cervical Microleakage in MOD Restorations: In Vitro Comparison of Indirect and Direct Composite

Cervical Microleakage in MOD Restorations: In Vitro Comparison of Indirect and Direct Composite

Effects of a solubility enhancer on penetration of hydrophobic component in model adhesives into wet demineralized dentin

Effect of Single Step Adhesives on the Marginal Permeability of Class V Resin Composites

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About