Enrico Coser Bridi1, Flávia Lucisano Botelho do Amaral1, Fabiana Mantovani Gomes França1, Cecilia Pedroso Turssi1, Roberta Tarkany Basting2,3. 1. São Leopoldo Mandic School of Dentistry and Research Institute, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil. 2. São Leopoldo Mandic School of Dentistry and Research Institute, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil. rbasting@yahoo.com. 3. Departamento de Odontologia Restauradora-Dentística, Faculdade de Odontologia e Instituto de Pesquisas São Leopoldo Mandic, Rua José Rocha Junqueira, 13. Bairro Swift, Campinas, SP, CEP: 13045-755, Brazil. rbasting@yahoo.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the inhibition of demineralization around enamel-dentin/restoration interface after dentin pretreatment with 2.5% titanium tetrafluoride (TiF4). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty dental class V cavities at the cementoenamel junction were distributed into four groups (n = 10), according to the presence or absence of TiF4 and to the adhesive system (Clearfil SE Bond/CL and Adper EasyOne/AD), and restored with a resin composite. A dynamic pH cycling model was used to induce the development of artificial caries lesions. After sectioning the dental blocks, Knoop microhardness tests were performed at different depths (20, 40, and 60 μm from the occlusal margin of the restoration) and at different distances (100, 200, and 300 μm from the adhesive interface). Repeated measures three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's test were used (α = 0.05). RESULTS: For enamel, there were no differences in the microhardness values for CL, AD, and TiF4-AD at depths, regardless of the distances. Considering each depth, there were no significant differences among treatments. For dentin, ANOVA showed no significant interaction among the independent variables treatment*distance*depth (p = 0.994), no significant interaction between treatment*depth (p = 0.722), no significant interaction between treatment*distance (p = 0.265), no significant interaction between depth*distance (p = 0.365), and no significant effect on treatment (p = 0.151), depth (p = 0.067), or distance (p = 0.251). CONCLUSIONS: Dentin pretreatment of the cavity walls with TiF4 before self-etching adhesive systems was not effective in inhibiting demineralization around the enamel-dentin/restoration interfaces. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The mechanism of incorporating fluoride in enamel and dentin of the cavity walls to inhibit demineralization around restorations seems ineffective when using TiF4 as a dentin pretreatment.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the inhibition of demineralization around enamel-dentin/restoration interface after dentin pretreatment with 2.5% titanium tetrafluoride (TiF4). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty dental class V cavities at the cementoenamel junction were distributed into four groups (n = 10), according to the presence or absence of TiF4 and to the adhesive system (Clearfil SE Bond/CL and Adper EasyOne/AD), and restored with a resin composite. A dynamic pH cycling model was used to induce the development of artificial caries lesions. After sectioning the dental blocks, Knoop microhardness tests were performed at different depths (20, 40, and 60 μm from the occlusal margin of the restoration) and at different distances (100, 200, and 300 μm from the adhesive interface). Repeated measures three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's test were used (α = 0.05). RESULTS: For enamel, there were no differences in the microhardness values for CL, AD, and TiF4-AD at depths, regardless of the distances. Considering each depth, there were no significant differences among treatments. For dentin, ANOVA showed no significant interaction among the independent variables treatment*distance*depth (p = 0.994), no significant interaction between treatment*depth (p = 0.722), no significant interaction between treatment*distance (p = 0.265), no significant interaction between depth*distance (p = 0.365), and no significant effect on treatment (p = 0.151), depth (p = 0.067), or distance (p = 0.251). CONCLUSIONS: Dentin pretreatment of the cavity walls with TiF4 before self-etching adhesive systems was not effective in inhibiting demineralization around the enamel-dentin/restoration interfaces. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The mechanism of incorporating fluoride in enamel and dentin of the cavity walls to inhibit demineralization around restorations seems ineffective when using TiF4 as a dentin pretreatment.
Authors: L Savarino; L Breschi; M Tedaldi; G Ciapetti; C Tarabusi; M Greco; A Giunti; C Prati Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: Hong Chen; Yunhao Tang; Michael D Weir; Lei Lei; Radi Masri; Christopher D Lynch; Thomas W Oates; Ke Zhang; Tao Hu; Hockin H K Xu Journal: RSC Adv Date: 2019-12-17 Impact factor: 4.036
Authors: Wen Zhou; Xinyu Peng; Xuedong Zhou; Andrea Bonavente; Michael D Weir; Mary Anne S Melo; Satoshi Imazato; Thomas W Oates; Lei Cheng; Hockin H K Xu Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2020-09-02 Impact factor: 5.923