UNLABELLED: Hydrofluoric acid can be used for intra-oral repair of restorations. Contamination of tooth substrate with hydrofluoric acid cannot always be avoided. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the bonding effectiveness to hydrofluoric acid contaminated dentin by, micro-tensile bond strength testing, SEM and TEM. METHODS: For this study, 15 molar teeth were used of which dentin surfaces were subjected to five, different etching procedures. Group A, 37.5% phosphoric acid (Kerr Gel) (control group); group B, 37.5% phosphoric acid followed by 3% hydrofluoric acid (DenMat); group C, 37.5% phosphoric acid, followed by 9.6% hydrofluoric acid (Pulpdent); group D, 3% hydrofluoric acid followed by 37.5%, phosphoric acid; group E, 9.6% hydrofluoric acid followed by 37.5% phosphoric acid. After the bonding procedure (OptiBond FL, Kerr) a composite resin build-up (Clearfil AP-X, Kuraray), was made. After 1 week storage, specimens were prepared for micro-tensile bond testing, SEM- and, TEM-analysis. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and post hoc Tukey's HSD (p<0.05). RESULTS: In the control group (solely phosphoric acid), the mean microTBS was 53.4+/-10.6 MPa, which was, significantly higher than any hydrofluoric acid prepared group (group A versus groups B-E, p<0.001). No, significant differences in microTBS were found between the 3% and 9.6% hydrofluoric acid groups: group B versus group C (13.5+/-5.5 MPa and 18.7+/-4.3 MPa, respectively) or group D versus group E (19.9+/-6.8 MPa and 20.3+/-4.1 MPa, respectively). SIGNIFICANCE: Due to its adverse effect on the bond strength of composite to dentin, contact of hydrofluoric acid to dentin should be avoided. Copyright 2010 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
UNLABELLED: Hydrofluoric acid can be used for intra-oral repair of restorations. Contamination of tooth substrate with hydrofluoric acid cannot always be avoided. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the bonding effectiveness to hydrofluoric acid contaminated dentin by, micro-tensile bond strength testing, SEM and TEM. METHODS: For this study, 15 molar teeth were used of which dentin surfaces were subjected to five, different etching procedures. Group A, 37.5% phosphoric acid (Kerr Gel) (control group); group B, 37.5% phosphoric acid followed by 3% hydrofluoric acid (DenMat); group C, 37.5% phosphoric acid, followed by 9.6% hydrofluoric acid (Pulpdent); group D, 3% hydrofluoric acid followed by 37.5%, phosphoric acid; group E, 9.6% hydrofluoric acid followed by 37.5% phosphoric acid. After the bonding procedure (OptiBond FL, Kerr) a composite resin build-up (Clearfil AP-X, Kuraray), was made. After 1 week storage, specimens were prepared for micro-tensile bond testing, SEM- and, TEM-analysis. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and post hoc Tukey's HSD (p<0.05). RESULTS: In the control group (solely phosphoric acid), the mean microTBS was 53.4+/-10.6 MPa, which was, significantly higher than any hydrofluoric acid prepared group (group A versus groups B-E, p<0.001). No, significant differences in microTBS were found between the 3% and 9.6% hydrofluoric acid groups: group B versus group C (13.5+/-5.5 MPa and 18.7+/-4.3 MPa, respectively) or group D versus group E (19.9+/-6.8 MPa and 20.3+/-4.1 MPa, respectively). SIGNIFICANCE: Due to its adverse effect on the bond strength of composite to dentin, contact of hydrofluoric acid to dentin should be avoided. Copyright 2010 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.