PURPOSE: To evaluate the influence of cleaning procedures (pumice, anionic detergent and both procedures together) on the tensile bond strength of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesive systems to bovine enamel and dentin in vitro. METHODS: Eighty non-carious, bovine incisors were extracted, embedded in acrylic resin to obtain enamel/dentin specimens. Flat bonding surfaces were obtained by grinding. Groups were divided according to substrate (enamel or dentin), adhesive system [etch-and-rinse, Adper Single Bond 2 (SB) or self-etch, Clearfil Protect Bond (PB)]; and cleaning substances (pumice, anionic detergent and their combination). The teeth were randomly divided into 20 groups (n=8): G1--Enamel (E) + SB; G2--E + oil (O) + SB; G3--E + O + Pumice (P) + SB; G4--E + O + Tergentol (T) + SB; G5--E + O + P + T + SB; G6--E + PB; G7--E + O + PB; G8--E + O + P + PB; G9--E + O + T + PB; G10--E + O + P + T + PB; G11--Dentin (D) + SB; G12 D + SB + O; G13--D + SB + O + P; G14--D + SB + O + T;G15--D + SB + O + P + T; G16--D + PB; G17--D + O + PB +; G18--D + O + P + PB; G19--D + O + T + PB; G20--D + O + P + T + PB. Specimens were contaminated with handpiece oil for 5 seconds before bonding. Adhesive systems and resin composite were applied according to manufacturers' instructions. Specimens were tested in tension after 24 hours of immersion using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/minute. Bond strengths were analyzed with ANOVA. Failure sites were observed and recorded. RESULTS: Tensile bond strength in MPa were: G1 (23.6 +/- 0.9); G2 (17.3 +/- 2.2); G3 (20.9 +/- 0.9); G4 (20.6 +/- 0.5); G5 (18.7 +/- 2.3); G6 (23.0 +/- 1.0); G7 (21.5 +/- 2.4); G8 (19.9 +/- 1.3); G9 (22.1 +/- 1.2); G10 (19.1 +/- 1.2); G11 (18.8 +/- 1.3); G12 (15.7 +/- 2.1); G13 (17.8 +/- 3.3); G14 (15.3 +/- 2.9); G15 (15.6 +/- 1.9); G16 (14.7 +/- 2.3); G17 (5.5 +/- 0.9); G18 (19.3 +/- 1.8); G19 (15.6 +/- 1.6); G20 (20.3 +/- 3.9). Statistical analysis showed that the main factors substrate and cleaning were statistically significant, as well as the triple interaction between factors of variance. However, the factor adhesive system did not show statistical difference. Oil contamination reduced bond strengths, being less detrimental to enamel than to dentin. Etch-and-rinse (SB) and two-step self-etch (PB) systems had similar bond strengths in the presence of oil contamination. For etch-and-rinse (SB), the cleaning procedures were able to clean enamel, but dentin was better cleaned by pumice. When self-etch (PB) system was used on enamel, anionic detergent was the best cleaning substance, while on dentin the tested procedures were similarly efficient.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the influence of cleaning procedures (pumice, anionic detergent and both procedures together) on the tensile bond strength of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesive systems to bovine enamel and dentin in vitro. METHODS: Eighty non-carious, bovine incisors were extracted, embedded in acrylic resin to obtain enamel/dentin specimens. Flat bonding surfaces were obtained by grinding. Groups were divided according to substrate (enamel or dentin), adhesive system [etch-and-rinse, Adper Single Bond 2 (SB) or self-etch, Clearfil Protect Bond (PB)]; and cleaning substances (pumice, anionic detergent and their combination). The teeth were randomly divided into 20 groups (n=8): G1--Enamel (E) + SB; G2--E + oil (O) + SB; G3--E + O + Pumice (P) + SB; G4--E + O + Tergentol (T) + SB; G5--E + O + P + T + SB; G6--E + PB; G7--E + O + PB; G8--E + O + P + PB; G9--E + O + T + PB; G10--E + O + P + T + PB; G11--Dentin (D) + SB; G12 D + SB + O; G13--D + SB + O + P; G14--D + SB + O + T;G15--D + SB + O + P + T; G16--D + PB; G17--D + O + PB +; G18--D + O + P + PB; G19--D + O + T + PB; G20--D + O + P + T + PB. Specimens were contaminated with handpiece oil for 5 seconds before bonding. Adhesive systems and resin composite were applied according to manufacturers' instructions. Specimens were tested in tension after 24 hours of immersion using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/minute. Bond strengths were analyzed with ANOVA. Failure sites were observed and recorded. RESULTS: Tensile bond strength in MPa were: G1 (23.6 +/- 0.9); G2 (17.3 +/- 2.2); G3 (20.9 +/- 0.9); G4 (20.6 +/- 0.5); G5 (18.7 +/- 2.3); G6 (23.0 +/- 1.0); G7 (21.5 +/- 2.4); G8 (19.9 +/- 1.3); G9 (22.1 +/- 1.2); G10 (19.1 +/- 1.2); G11 (18.8 +/- 1.3); G12 (15.7 +/- 2.1); G13 (17.8 +/- 3.3); G14 (15.3 +/- 2.9); G15 (15.6 +/- 1.9); G16 (14.7 +/- 2.3); G17 (5.5 +/- 0.9); G18 (19.3 +/- 1.8); G19 (15.6 +/- 1.6); G20 (20.3 +/- 3.9). Statistical analysis showed that the main factors substrate and cleaning were statistically significant, as well as the triple interaction between factors of variance. However, the factor adhesive system did not show statistical difference. Oil contamination reduced bond strengths, being less detrimental to enamel than to dentin. Etch-and-rinse (SB) and two-step self-etch (PB) systems had similar bond strengths in the presence of oil contamination. For etch-and-rinse (SB), the cleaning procedures were able to clean enamel, but dentin was better cleaned by pumice. When self-etch (PB) system was used on enamel, anionic detergent was the best cleaning substance, while on dentin the tested procedures were similarly efficient.
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