OBJECTIVE: To compare resin-dentin bond strengths and the micropermeability of hydrophobic vs. hydrophilic resins bonded to acid-etched or EDTA-treated dentin, using the ethanol wet-bonding technique. METHODS: Flat dentin surfaces from extracted human third molars were conditioned before bonding with: 37% H(3)PO(4) (15s) or 0.1M EDTA (60s). Five experimental resin blends of different hydrophilicities and one commercial adhesive (SBMP: Scotchbond Multi-Purpose) were applied to ethanol wet-dentin (1 min) and light-cured (20s). The solvated resins were used as primers (50% ethanol/50% comonomers) and their respective neat resins were used as the adhesive. The resin-bonded teeth were stored in distilled water (24h) and sectioned in beams for microtensile bond strength testing. Modes of failure were examined by stereoscopic light microscopy and SEM. Confocal tandem scanning microscopy (TSM) interfacial characterization and micropermeability were also performed after filling the pulp chamber with 1 wt% aqueous rhodamine-B. RESULTS: The most hydrophobic resin 1 gave the lowest bond strength values to acid-etched dentin and all beams failed prematurely when the resin was applied to EDTA-treated dentin. Resins 2 and 3 gave intermediate bond strengths to both conditioned substrates. Resin 4, an acidic hydrophilic resin, gave the highest bond strengths to both EDTA-treated and acid-etched dentin. Resin 5 was the only hydrophilic resin showing poor resin infiltration when applied on acid-etched dentin. SIGNIFICANCE: The ethanol wet-bonding technique may improve the infiltration of most of the adhesives used in this study into dentin, especially when applied to EDTA-treated dentin. The chemical composition of the resin blends was a determining factor influencing the ability of adhesives to bond to EDTA-treated or 37% H(3)PO(4) acid-etched dentin, when using the ethanol wet-bonding technique in a clinically relevant time period. Copyright (c) 2009 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: To compare resin-dentin bond strengths and the micropermeability of hydrophobic vs. hydrophilic resins bonded to acid-etched or EDTA-treated dentin, using the ethanol wet-bonding technique. METHODS: Flat dentin surfaces from extracted human third molars were conditioned before bonding with: 37% H(3)PO(4) (15s) or 0.1M EDTA (60s). Five experimental resin blends of different hydrophilicities and one commercial adhesive (SBMP: Scotchbond Multi-Purpose) were applied to ethanol wet-dentin (1 min) and light-cured (20s). The solvated resins were used as primers (50% ethanol/50% comonomers) and their respective neat resins were used as the adhesive. The resin-bonded teeth were stored in distilled water (24h) and sectioned in beams for microtensile bond strength testing. Modes of failure were examined by stereoscopic light microscopy and SEM. Confocal tandem scanning microscopy (TSM) interfacial characterization and micropermeability were also performed after filling the pulp chamber with 1 wt% aqueous rhodamine-B. RESULTS: The most hydrophobic resin 1 gave the lowest bond strength values to acid-etched dentin and all beams failed prematurely when the resin was applied to EDTA-treated dentin. Resins 2 and 3 gave intermediate bond strengths to both conditioned substrates. Resin 4, an acidic hydrophilic resin, gave the highest bond strengths to both EDTA-treated and acid-etched dentin. Resin 5 was the only hydrophilic resin showing poor resin infiltration when applied on acid-etched dentin. SIGNIFICANCE: The ethanol wet-bonding technique may improve the infiltration of most of the adhesives used in this study into dentin, especially when applied to EDTA-treated dentin. The chemical composition of the resin blends was a determining factor influencing the ability of adhesives to bond to EDTA-treated or 37% H(3)PO(4)acid-etched dentin, when using the ethanol wet-bonding technique in a clinically relevant time period. Copyright (c) 2009 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors: M Yoshioka; Y Yoshida; S Inoue; P Lambrechts; G Vanherle; Y Nomura; M Okazaki; H Shintani; B Van Meerbeek Journal: J Biomed Mater Res Date: 2002-01
Authors: R M Carvalho; J S Mendonça; S L Santiago; R R Silveira; F C P Garcia; F R Tay; D H Pashley Journal: J Dent Res Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 6.116
Authors: Salvatore Sauro; Timothy F Watson; Francesco Mannocci; Franklin R Tay; David H Pashley Journal: J Adhes Dent Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 2.359
Authors: Salvatore Sauro; Timothy F Watson; Francesco Mannocci; Katsuya Miyake; Bradford P Huffman; Franklin R Tay; David H Pashley Journal: J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 3.368
Authors: Milena Cadenaro; Lorenzo Breschi; Frederick A Rueggeberg; Michael Suchko; Evan Grodin; Kelli Agee; Roberto Di Lenarda; Franklin R Tay; David H Pashley Journal: Dent Mater Date: 2008-12-25 Impact factor: 5.304
Authors: Leo Tjäderhane; Fabio D Nascimento; Lorenzo Breschi; Annalisa Mazzoni; Ivarne L S Tersariol; Saulo Geraldeli; Arzu Tezvergil-Mutluay; Marcela Carrilho; Ricardo M Carvalho; Franklin R Tay; David H Pashley Journal: Dent Mater Date: 2013-08-14 Impact factor: 5.304
Authors: K Saeki; Y-C Chien; G Nonomura; A F Chin; S Habelitz; L B Gower; S J Marshall; G W Marshall Journal: Arch Oral Biol Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 2.633
Authors: M Takahashi; M Nakajima; J Tagami; D L S Scheffel; R M Carvalho; A Mazzoni; M Cadenaro; A Tezvergil-Mutluay; L Breschi; L Tjäderhane; S S Jang; F R Tay; K A Agee; D H Pashley Journal: Acta Biomater Date: 2013-08-06 Impact factor: 8.947