Search

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to compare, in vitro, the shear bond strength of resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) bonded to an enamel surface prepared by either sandblasting with 50μm of aluminium oxide particles, deproteinization with 5.25% NaOCl, or by combining both techniques., Material and Methods: One hundred and fifty human premolars were cleaned and randomly divided into five groups. In group 1, the teeth were etched using 37% phosphoric acid and bonded with Transbond XT. In group 2, the teeth were etched using 37% phosphoric acid and bonded with Fuji Ortho LC. In group 3, the teeth were deproteinized with 5.25% NaOCl for one minute then etched with 37% phosphoric acid and bonded with Fuji Ortho LC. In group 4, the enamel was sandblasted with 50μm of aluminium oxide particles for 5seconds prior to etching and bonding with Fuji Ortho LC. In group 5, the teeth were both sandblasted with 50μm of aluminium oxide particles for 5seconds and deproteinized with 5.25% NaOCl for one minute prior to etching using 37% phosphoric acid and bonding with Fuji Ortho LC. The shear bond strength was tested using a universal testing machine with a crosshead speed of 1.0mm/min. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) index was also determined for each group., Results: The mean shear bond strengths were as follows: group 1: 11.33±2.60MPa, group 2: 8.14±2.09, group 3: 9.57±3.25MPa, group 4: 9.49±1.99MPa and group 5: 9.76±2.29MPa (P=0.0001)., Conclusion: The results show that pre-treating the enamel with either sandblasting, NaOCl, or both, could give a significantly higher shear bond strength than using RMGI with acid etch alone., (Copyright © 2017 CEO. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To see whether there is an advantage to using a self-limiting phosphoric acid etchant versus a traditional 34% phosphoric acid etchant for bonding by measuring the depth of etch at multiple time intervals., Materials and Methods: A total of 25 bovine teeth were mounted and etched on the facial surface with two different etchants: standard 34% phosphoric acid and a self-limiting 35% phosphoric acid etchant at varied time intervals of 15, 30, 60, 90, and 120 seconds. Teeth were scanned using a three-dimensional laser confocal scanning microscope prior to etching and scanned again after etching to determine the depth of enamel etched compared to the baseline enamel surface prior to etching., Results: The 34% phosphoric acid etchant etched significantly deeper than the self-limiting etch. Etch times exceeding 30 seconds also etched significantly deeper for both types of etchant., Conclusion: The etch depth of the self-limiting etchant was consistently less than the standard etchant. Both types of etchant etched deeper after 30 seconds, but the depth of etch at 120 seconds was not different than at 60 seconds, indicating that both etchants are somewhat self-limiting in depth. Therefore, there is no advantage to using the self-limiting etchant.

Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the shear bond strength of an airborne-particle abraded zirconia, an acid-etched zirconia (Piranha solution), an Alloy Primer treated zirconia, and a silaned zirconia to enamel, all bonded with a phosphate-methacrylate resin luting agent., Materials and Methods: Seventy extracted intact human molars were collected, cleaned, and mounted in autopolymerizing acrylic resin, with the experimental surface of the teeth exposed. The specimens were randomly divided into seven groups of zirconia specimens (4 mm diameter, 2 mm thick). Group 1: Airborne-particle abrasion; group 2: Airborne-particle abrasion and Z-PRIME Plus; group 3: Airborne-particle abrasion and alloy primer; group 4: Piranha solution 7:1; group 5: Piranha solution 7:1 and Z-PRIME Plus; group 6: Piranha solution 7:1 and Alloy primer; group 7: CoJet and silane. All specimens were luted with a phosphate-methacrylate resin luting agent (Panavia F2.0) and stored in distilled water for 1 day, then thermocycled (5°C and 55°C) for 500 cycles and tested for shear bond strength (SBS), measured in MPa, with a universal testing machine at a 0.55 mm/min crosshead speed. All specimens were inspected under a scanning electron microscope to determine mode of failure. The mean values and standard deviations of all specimens were calculated for each group. A one-way ANOVA was performed, and multiple pairwise comparisons were then completed with post hoc Tukey test (alpha = 0.05)., Results: The airborne-particle abrasion and Z-PRIME Plus group resulted in a significantly higher SBS than the other groups (21.11 ± 6.32 MPa) (p < 0.001). The CoJet and silane group (15.99 ± 8.92 MPa) and airborne-particle abrasion and alloy primer group (11.07 ± 4.34 MPa) showed high shear bond strength but not statistically significant from the airborne-particle abrasion group (14.23 ± 5.68 MPa). Failure mode was predominately mixed in groups 1, 2, 3, and 7 with islands of retained resin on the zirconia and enamel surfaces; however, groups 4, 5, and 6 showed mostly adhesive failures, which left the zirconia surface free of the adhesive materials. No cohesive failures of the substrates (ceramic, resin, or enamel) were observed., Conclusion: Airborne-particle abrasion followed by the application of a zirconia primer produced the highest bond strength to enamel. Therefore, it can be recommended as a promising surface treatment method to achieve a durable bond to densely sintered zirconia ceramics., (© 2013 by the American College of Prosthodontists.)

Purpose: To determine whether or not re-etching of oxalate-treated dentin and enamel increases microshear bond strength (µSBS) and improves hybridization. Materials and Methods: Two single-bottle etch-and-rinse adhesives, SingleBond (3M/ESPE) and OptiBond S (Kerr), were bonded to deep occlusal dentin and enamel after perfusion under 20 mmHg simulated intrapulpal pressure. For each adhesive tested, the experimental groups were: G1: bonding according to manufacturer's instructions (control); G2: application of oxalate desensitizer (D/Sense Crystal, Centrix) to acid-etched substrate followed by 60 s water rinsing prior to bonding; G3: same as G2, but with a further 15-s re-etching with 35% phosphoric acid before bonding. The microshear bond strength (µSBS) to dentin and enamel was tested (n = 15); a scanning electron microscopic (SEM) analysis of surface topography (n = 2), interface (n = 2), and failure mode was also performed. The data were statistically analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey's tests at p ≤ 0.05. Results: In enamel, both adhesives showed no significant difference in µSBS among groups. In dentin, the highest statistically significant µSBS for both adhesives was recorded for G1, followed by G2, with the lowest values in G3. The predominant mode of failure was adhesive. SEM analysis of the topography after oxalate treatment revealed remnants of calcium oxalate crystals that were removed only from enamel surfaces after re-etching. SEM images of the interface revealed inadequate dentin hybridization in G2 and G3 compared to G1. Conclusion: Re-etching after oxalate treatment compromises bonding of single-bottle etch-and-rinse adhesives to dentin and provides no added benefit to enamel bonding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study evaluated the microleakage of brackets bonded by four different enamel etching techniques. Forty freshly extracted human premolars were divided randomly into four equal groups and received the following treatment: group 1, acid etching; group 2, self-etching primer (SEP); group 3, erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) laser etching; and group 4, erbium, chromium:yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet (Er,Cr:YSGG) laser etching. After photopolymerization, the teeth were kept in distilled water for 1 month and then subjected to 500 thermal cycles. Then, the specimens were sealed with nail varnish, stained with 0.5% basic fuchsin for 24 h, sectioned, and examined under a stereomicroscope. In addition, they were scored for marginal microleakage at the adhesive-enamel and bracket-adhesive interfaces from the incisal and gingival margins. Statistical analyses consisted of the Kruskal-Wallis test and the Mann-Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction. Microleakage occurred between the adhesive-enamel and bracket-adhesive interfaces in all groups. For the adhesive-enamel surface, a significant difference was observed between group 1 and groups 2 (P = 0.011), 3 (P = 0.002), and 4 (P = 0.000) on the gingival side. Overall, significant differences were observed between group 1 and groups 3 (P = 0.003) and 4 (P = 0.000). In dental bonding procedures, acid etching was found to result in the least microleakage. Since etching with a laser decreases the risk of caries and is time-saving, it may serve as an alternative to acid etching. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]