OBJECTIVES: To compare the micro-tensile bond strengths of two different adhesive systems (ABF (Clearfil Protect Bond), Kuraray Medical Inc., Tokyo, Japan) and Prime & Bond NT (PBNT, Dentsply, Konstanz, Germany) bonded to caries-affected dentine retained after chemo-mechanical caries removal using Carisolv gel, with that retained after excavation using conventional hand instrumentation. METHOD: Twenty, adult, human extracted carious teeth were used in this split tooth study with bur-cut cavities in sound dentine acting as controls. After clinical caries excavation, the occlusal cavities in each experimental group were restored with either bonding system plus composite. Matchstick-shaped samples through the bond interfaces were sectioned and microtensile bond strengths recorded. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to ascertain the mode of failure at the restoration-dentine interface. RESULTS: Statistical analysis of the bond strength data showed that for the ABF group, there was no difference in bond strengths between the controls and Carisolv group but these values were significantly higher than those for the hand-excavated samples. PBNT samples showed no significant differences in any of the three test groups, with wider ranging data sets. SEM analysis indicated a variety of failures at the interface including cohesive failures within the caries-affected dentine itself. CONCLUSIONS: From the data generated by this study it could be concluded that microtensile bond strengths of PBNT/composite restorations to caries-affected dentine in clinical cavities were statistically comparable to those to sound dentine. In the ABF/composite restored group (self-etched), the use of conventional hand excavation appeared to weaken the bond strength to the remaining caries-affected dentine. However, the use of Carisolv gel excavation did not compromise bond strengths to caries-affected dentine in either group tested.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the micro-tensile bond strengths of two different adhesive systems (ABF (Clearfil Protect Bond), Kuraray Medical Inc., Tokyo, Japan) and Prime & Bond NT (PBNT, Dentsply, Konstanz, Germany) bonded to caries-affected dentine retained after chemo-mechanical caries removal using Carisolv gel, with that retained after excavation using conventional hand instrumentation. METHOD: Twenty, adult, human extracted carious teeth were used in this split tooth study with bur-cut cavities in sound dentine acting as controls. After clinical caries excavation, the occlusal cavities in each experimental group were restored with either bonding system plus composite. Matchstick-shaped samples through the bond interfaces were sectioned and microtensile bond strengths recorded. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to ascertain the mode of failure at the restoration-dentine interface. RESULTS: Statistical analysis of the bond strength data showed that for the ABF group, there was no difference in bond strengths between the controls and Carisolv group but these values were significantly higher than those for the hand-excavated samples. PBNT samples showed no significant differences in any of the three test groups, with wider ranging data sets. SEM analysis indicated a variety of failures at the interface including cohesive failures within the caries-affected dentine itself. CONCLUSIONS: From the data generated by this study it could be concluded that microtensile bond strengths of PBNT/composite restorations to caries-affected dentine in clinical cavities were statistically comparable to those to sound dentine. In the ABF/composite restored group (self-etched), the use of conventional hand excavation appeared to weaken the bond strength to the remaining caries-affected dentine. However, the use of Carisolv gel excavation did not compromise bond strengths to caries-affected dentine in either group tested.