Degradation of resin-dentin bonds of etch-and-rinse adhesive system to primary and permanent teeth

Abstract

The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the degradation of resin-dentin bonds of an etch-and-rinse adhesive system to primary and permanent teeth. Flat superficial coronal dentin surfaces from 5 primary second molars and 5 permanent third molars were etched with phosphoric acid and bonded with an adhesive system (Adper Single Bond 2, 3M ESPE). Blocks of resin composite (Z250, 3M ESPE) were built up and the teeth sectioned to produce bonded sticks with a 0.8 mm 2 crosssectional area. The sticks of each tooth were randomly divided and assigned to be subjected to microtensile testing immediately (24 h) or after aging by water storage (6 months). Data were analyzed by two-way repeated measures ANOVA and Tukey post hoc test (α = 0.05). Failure mode was evaluated using a stereomicroscope (400×). Microtensile values significantly decreased after the 6 months aging, independent of the dentin substrate. In 24 h, the values obtained to primary dentin were lower compared with permanent dentin. This difference was not maintained after aging. Adhesive/mixed failure was predominant in all experimental groups. In conclusion, degradation of resin-dentin bonds of the etch-and-rinse adhesive system occurred after 6 months of water storage; however, the reduction in bond strength values was higher for permanent teeth.

Long‐term microtensile bond strength of self‐etch adhesives and influence of 7‐s phosphoric acid etching on adhesion of a 3‐step etch‐and‐rinse adhesive to the dentine of primary teeth

“…It was shown in other in vitro studies that the bond strength to the dentine of primary and permanent teeth decreases during storage, 20,24,31 which was also proven for majority of adhesives tested in this study. Changes in µTBS within each adhesive group over time, however, proved not to be of statistical significance.…”

“…µTBS testing of different adhesive classes to the dentine of primary teeth has been investigated in several laboratory studies. 6,14,15,17,[19][20][21][22] In this study, µTBS to primary dentine was tested as the significance of enamel adhesion in primary dentition declines with longer periods of wear due to erosion and abrasion of primary enamel. 2 For this reason, effective bonding to dentine becomes more important in primary teeth.…”

Microleakage in combined amalgam/composite resin restorations in MOD cavities

“…Despite the favorable presence of cervical enamel, composite resin bonding on cervical surface of proximal box usually takes place on aprismatic enamel or dentine. Bonding onto aprismatic enamel is compromised by altered etching pattern 5 and dentin bond is degraded, especially in permanent teeth [5][6] . Lower level of dentin mineralization, challenging moisture control for application of adhesive system, presence of tubular fluid and bonddegrading matrix-metalloproteinases hinder bonding to dentin 5 , making composite placement a technique-sensitive procedure 7 .…”

Effect of composite/amalgam thickness on fracture resistance of maxillary premolar teeth, restored with combined amalgam-composite restorations

“…On the other side, polymerization shrinkage, difficulty of achieving tight inter proximal contacts in posterior teeth, wear at composite resin contact area and potential for microleakage especially when the gingival margin lies apical to the cementoenamel junction are among its drawbacks ( 7 , 8 ). Furthermore, gingival margin of proximal box of class II composite restoration is usually composed of aprismatic enamel or dentin.…”