OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of saliva contamination on microtensile bond strength (microTBS) between resin interfaces and to determine which decontamination methods best re-established the original resin-resin bond strength. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Ninety-six light-cured resin composite cylinders of Z-250, Renew, Clearfil APX, and Pertac II were randomly divided into six groups. For each material, one group of specimens was not contaminated, serving as the control. For the other specimens, the top surface of each block was treated with saliva that was slowly dried (Treatment 1); dried forcefully (Treatment 2); slowly dried, rinsed, and dried (Treatment 3); slowly dried, rinsed, dried, and bonded with Single Bond, One-Step, Clearfil SE Bond, or Prompt L-Pop (Treatment 4); or slowly dried, but not rinsed, and bonded using the same adhesives (Treatment 5). Two 2-mm increments of resin composite were applied and light-cured. After 24 h, the assemblies were trimmed for microtensile bond testing and were loaded to failure at 1 mm/min. Data were analyzed using two-way and one-way ANOVA and Fisher's PLSD (p<0.05). RESULTS: Control values ranged from 45.1 MPa for Pertac II to 71.5 MPa for APX. Treatment 1 caused significant reduction in resin-resin bond strength for all materials tested but for two of the materials in treatment 2. Pertac II was the only material that did not show a statistical difference from control group for treatment 3. Treatment 4 re-established the control values for Z-250 and Renew and treatment 5 was the only one to show no statistical difference for all materials tested. SEM observation revealed a smooth surface in treatment 1, but treatment 3 showed a few craters. Treatment 4 and 5 showed a mixture of cohesive failure in the composite and adhesive. SIGNIFICANCE: The most reliable method for decontaminating saliva from resin surfaces involves the application of adhesives.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of saliva contamination on microtensile bond strength (microTBS) between resin interfaces and to determine which decontamination methods best re-established the original resin-resin bond strength. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-six light-cured resin composite cylinders of Z-250, Renew, Clearfil APX, and Pertac II were randomly divided into six groups. For each material, one group of specimens was not contaminated, serving as the control. For the other specimens, the top surface of each block was treated with saliva that was slowly dried (Treatment 1); dried forcefully (Treatment 2); slowly dried, rinsed, and dried (Treatment 3); slowly dried, rinsed, dried, and bonded with Single Bond, One-Step, Clearfil SE Bond, or Prompt L-Pop (Treatment 4); or slowly dried, but not rinsed, and bonded using the same adhesives (Treatment 5). Two 2-mm increments of resin composite were applied and light-cured. After 24 h, the assemblies were trimmed for microtensile bond testing and were loaded to failure at 1 mm/min. Data were analyzed using two-way and one-way ANOVA and Fisher's PLSD (p<0.05). RESULTS: Control values ranged from 45.1 MPa for Pertac II to 71.5 MPa for APX. Treatment 1 caused significant reduction in resin-resin bond strength for all materials tested but for two of the materials in treatment 2. Pertac II was the only material that did not show a statistical difference from control group for treatment 3. Treatment 4 re-established the control values for Z-250 and Renew and treatment 5 was the only one to show no statistical difference for all materials tested. SEM observation revealed a smooth surface in treatment 1, but treatment 3 showed a few craters. Treatment 4 and 5 showed a mixture of cohesive failure in the composite and adhesive. SIGNIFICANCE: The most reliable method for decontaminating saliva from resin surfaces involves the application of adhesives.
Authors: Lilliam Marie Pinzon; John M Powers; Kathy L O'Keefe; Vladimir Dusevish; Paulette Spencer; Grayson W Marshall Journal: Odontology Date: 2011-04-23 Impact factor: 2.634
Authors: Lilliam M Pinzon; Makoto Oguri; Kathy O'Keefe; Vladimir Dusevish; Paulette Spencer; John M Powers; Grayson W Marshall Journal: Odontology Date: 2010-02-16 Impact factor: 2.634
Authors: Kirsten L Van Landuyt; Jan De Munck; R Banu Ermis; Marleen Peumans; Bart Van Meerbeek Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2013-08-15 Impact factor: 3.573