OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare water sorption (WS) and solubility (WSB) of different dentin bonding agents (DBA) as regards classification and light-activation system. The null hypotheses were: (1) there is no difference among DBA with respect to water sorption and solubility; (2) there is no effect of light-curing source on water sorption and solubility of DBA. METHODS: The tested materials were: three-step etch-and-rinse (ScotchBond multi-purpose and Heliobond-control groups), two-step etch-and-rinse (Excite, Adper Single Bond, Adper Single Bond 2), self-etching (Adhse) and all-in-one (Xeno III) systems. For each material, six specimens were prepared (0.8mmx5.5mm) for each light-activation device: halogen lamp (control) or light-emitting diodes (LED). They were transferred to desiccators until a constant mass was obtained (m(1)), subsequently immersed in deionized water until no alteration was obtained (m(2)). Following, the specimens were reconditioned to constant mass in desiccators (m(3)). The volume (V) of each specimen was calculated (mm(3)). WS and WSB were determined using the equations (m(2)-m(3)/V) and (m(3)-m(1)/V), respectively. Data were subjected to one-way analysis of variance and Tukey test (p<0.05). The influence of photo-activation units was analyzed by t-test. RESULTS: Higher values of WS and WSB were observed for the two-step etch-and-rinse and all-in-one systems. The employed light-activation unit also affected the tested characteristics. Thus, the anticipated null hypotheses were rejected. CONCLUSIONS: Simplified systems were more susceptible to water adverse and they may become more prone to degradation over time regardless of the type of light-activation source.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare water sorption (WS) and solubility (WSB) of different dentin bonding agents (DBA) as regards classification and light-activation system. The null hypotheses were: (1) there is no difference among DBA with respect to water sorption and solubility; (2) there is no effect of light-curing source on water sorption and solubility of DBA. METHODS: The tested materials were: three-step etch-and-rinse (ScotchBond multi-purpose and Heliobond-control groups), two-step etch-and-rinse (Excite, Adper Single Bond, Adper Single Bond 2), self-etching (Adhse) and all-in-one (Xeno III) systems. For each material, six specimens were prepared (0.8mmx5.5mm) for each light-activation device: halogen lamp (control) or light-emitting diodes (LED). They were transferred to desiccators until a constant mass was obtained (m(1)), subsequently immersed in deionized water until no alteration was obtained (m(2)). Following, the specimens were reconditioned to constant mass in desiccators (m(3)). The volume (V) of each specimen was calculated (mm(3)). WS and WSB were determined using the equations (m(2)-m(3)/V) and (m(3)-m(1)/V), respectively. Data were subjected to one-way analysis of variance and Tukey test (p<0.05). The influence of photo-activation units was analyzed by t-test. RESULTS: Higher values of WS and WSB were observed for the two-step etch-and-rinse and all-in-one systems. The employed light-activation unit also affected the tested characteristics. Thus, the anticipated null hypotheses were rejected. CONCLUSIONS: Simplified systems were more susceptible to water adverse and they may become more prone to degradation over time regardless of the type of light-activation source.
Authors: Sabrina A Feitosa; Jadesada Palasuk; Saulo Geraldeli; Lester Jack Windsor; Marco C Bottino Journal: J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater Date: 2018-09-10 Impact factor: 3.368
Authors: David H Pashley; Franklin R Tay; Lorenzo Breschi; Leo Tjäderhane; Ricardo M Carvalho; Marcela Carrilho; Arzu Tezvergil-Mutluay Journal: Dent Mater Date: 2010-11-27 Impact factor: 5.304