Joo-Hee Shin1, Ji-Hyun Jang2, Sang Hyuk Park3, Euiseong Kim4. 1. Department of Conservative Dentistry, Korea University Medical Center, Korea University, Seoul, Korea. 2. Department of Conservative Dentistry, Kyung Hee University Dental Hospital at Gangdong, Seoul, Korea. 3. Department of Conservative Dentistry, Kyung Hee University Dental Hospital at Gangdong, Seoul, Korea; Oral Biology Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea. 4. Microscope Center, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Oral Science Research Center, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea. Electronic address: andyendo@yuhs.ac.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the micromorphologic changes that accompany different surface treatments on mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and their effect on the bond strength to the composite resin with 4 adhesive systems. METHODS: Three types of MTA cement, ProRoot MTA (WMTA) (Dentsply, Tulsa, OK), MTA Angelus (AMTA) (Angelus, Londrina, PR, Brazil), and Endocem MTA (EMTA) (Maruchi, Wonju, Korea), were prepared and stored for a week to encourage setting. Surface treatment was performed using phosphoric acid or self-etch primer, and an untreated MTA surface was prepared as a control. The surface changes were observed using scanning electron microscopy. MTA surfaces were bonded with 4 adhesive systems, including Scotchbond Multipurpose (3M ESPE, St Paul, MN), Single Bond 2 (3M ESPE), Clearfil SE BOND (Kuraray, Osaka, Japan), and AdheSE One F (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein), to evaluate the adhesive effectiveness of MTA followed by composite resin restoration. The shear bond strength of the polymerized specimens was tested. RESULTS: For WMTA and AMTA, untreated surfaces showed an irregular crystalline plate with clusters of globular aggregate particles. For EMTA, the untreated surface presented a reticular matrix with acicular crystals. After surface treatment, superficial crystalline structures were eroded regardless of the MTA cement and adhesive system used. WMTA bonded significantly more strongly than AMTA and EMTA, regardless of the adhesive system used. In the WMTA and AMTA groups, AdheSE One F showed the highest bond strength to the composite. For EMTA, no significant differences were found across adhesive systems. CONCLUSIONS: Acidic treatment of the MTA surface affected the micromorphology and the bond strength to the composite. Within the limitations of this study, using a 1-step self-etch adhesive system might result in a strong bond to WMTA when the composite resin restoration is required over MTA cement.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the micromorphologic changes that accompany different surface treatments on mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and their effect on the bond strength to the composite resin with 4 adhesive systems. METHODS: Three types of MTA cement, ProRoot MTA (WMTA) (Dentsply, Tulsa, OK), MTA Angelus (AMTA) (Angelus, Londrina, PR, Brazil), and Endocem MTA (EMTA) (Maruchi, Wonju, Korea), were prepared and stored for a week to encourage setting. Surface treatment was performed using phosphoric acid or self-etch primer, and an untreated MTA surface was prepared as a control. The surface changes were observed using scanning electron microscopy. MTA surfaces were bonded with 4 adhesive systems, including Scotchbond Multipurpose (3M ESPE, St Paul, MN), Single Bond 2 (3M ESPE), Clearfil SE BOND (Kuraray, Osaka, Japan), and AdheSE One F (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein), to evaluate the adhesive effectiveness of MTA followed by composite resin restoration. The shear bond strength of the polymerized specimens was tested. RESULTS: For WMTA and AMTA, untreated surfaces showed an irregular crystalline plate with clusters of globular aggregate particles. For EMTA, the untreated surface presented a reticular matrix with acicular crystals. After surface treatment, superficial crystalline structures were eroded regardless of the MTA cement and adhesive system used. WMTA bonded significantly more strongly than AMTA and EMTA, regardless of the adhesive system used. In the WMTA and AMTA groups, AdheSE One F showed the highest bond strength to the composite. For EMTA, no significant differences were found across adhesive systems. CONCLUSIONS: Acidic treatment of the MTA surface affected the micromorphology and the bond strength to the composite. Within the limitations of this study, using a 1-step self-etch adhesive system might result in a strong bond to WMTA when the composite resin restoration is required over MTA cement.