Megan K Pugach1, Fusun Ozer2, Raj Mulmadgi2, Yong Li3, Cynthia Suggs4, J Timothy Wright4, John D Bartlett5, Carolyn W Gibson6, Rochelle G Lindemeyer7. 1. Department of Mineralized Tissue Biology, The Forsyth Institute, Cambridge, Mass., USA; Department of Developmental Biology, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, Mass., USA. 2. Department of Preventive and Restorative Sciences, School of Dental Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa, USA. 3. Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa, USA. 4. Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N.C., USA. 5. Mineralized Tissue Biology, The Forsyth Institute, Cambridge, Mass., USA. 6. Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, at the School of Dental Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa, USA. 7. Department of Pediatric Dentistry, at the School of Dental Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa, USA. lindemey@dental.upenn.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were to: (1) investigate adhesion through shear bond strength (SBS) testing of a resin composite bonded with a self-etching bonding system (SEB) to amelogenesis imperfecta (AI)-affected deproteinized mouse enamel or dentin; and (2) compare wild-type (WT), amelogenin null (AmelxKO), and matrix metalloproteinase-20 null (Mmp20KO) enamel and dentin phenotypes using micro-CT and nanoindentation. METHODS: Enamel incisor surfaces of WT, AmelxKO, and Mmp20KO mice were treated with SEB with and without sodium hypochlorite and tested for SBS. Incisor dentin was also treated with SEB and tested for SBS. These surfaces were further examined by scanning electron miscroscopy. Micro-CT and nanoindentation analyses were performed on mouse dentin and enamel. Data were analyzed for significance by analysis of variance. RESULTS: Deproteinization did not improve SBS of SEB to these AI-affected enamel surfaces. SBS of AmelxKO teeth was similar in dentin and enamel; however, it was higher in Mmp20KO dentin. The nanohardness of knockout enamel was significantly lower than WT, while knockout dentin nanohardness was not different from WT. CONCLUSIONS: Using animal amelogenesis imperfecta models, enamel sodium hypochlorite deproteinization of hypoplastic and hypoplastic-hypomaturation enamel did not increase shear bond strength, while removal of the defective enamel allowed optimal dentin bonding.
PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were to: (1) investigate adhesion through shear bond strength (SBS) testing of a resin composite bonded with a self-etching bonding system (SEB) to amelogenesis imperfecta (AI)-affected deproteinized mouse enamel or dentin; and (2) compare wild-type (WT), amelogenin null (AmelxKO), and matrix metalloproteinase-20 null (Mmp20KO) enamel and dentin phenotypes using micro-CT and nanoindentation. METHODS: Enamel incisor surfaces of WT, AmelxKO, and Mmp20KO mice were treated with SEB with and without sodium hypochlorite and tested for SBS. Incisor dentin was also treated with SEB and tested for SBS. These surfaces were further examined by scanning electron miscroscopy. Micro-CT and nanoindentation analyses were performed on mouse dentin and enamel. Data were analyzed for significance by analysis of variance. RESULTS: Deproteinization did not improve SBS of SEB to these AI-affected enamel surfaces. SBS of AmelxKO teeth was similar in dentin and enamel; however, it was higher in Mmp20KO dentin. The nanohardness of knockout enamel was significantly lower than WT, while knockout dentin nanohardness was not different from WT. CONCLUSIONS: Using animal amelogenesis imperfecta models, enamel sodium hypochlorite deproteinization of hypoplastic and hypoplastic-hypomaturation enamel did not increase shear bond strength, while removal of the defective enamel allowed optimal dentin bonding.
Authors: C W Gibson; Z A Yuan; B Hall; G Longenecker; E Chen; T Thyagarajan; T Sreenath; J T Wright; S Decker; R Piddington; G Harrison; A B Kulkarni Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2001-06-13 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Kristina D Coffield; Ceib Phillips; Melissa Brady; Michael W Roberts; Ronald P Strauss; J Timothy Wright Journal: J Am Dent Assoc Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 3.634
Authors: M K Pugach; F Ozer; Y Li; K Sheth; R Beasley; A Resnick; L Daneshmehr; A B Kulkarni; J D Bartlett; C W Gibson; R G Lindemeyer Journal: J Dent Res Date: 2011-09-13 Impact factor: 6.116
Authors: J T Wright; P S Hart; M J Aldred; K Seow; P J M Crawford; S P Hong; C W Gibson; T C Hart Journal: Connect Tissue Res Date: 2003 Impact factor: 3.417