R E Silveira1, R G Vivanco1, R C de Morais1, G Da Col Dos Santos Pinto1, F de C P Pires-de-Souza2. 1. Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Ribeirão Preto School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo (FORP-USP), Av. Do Café, s/n, Bairro Monte Alegre, Ribeirão Preto, SP, CEP 14040-904, Brazil. 2. Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Ribeirão Preto School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo (FORP-USP), Av. Do Café, s/n, Bairro Monte Alegre, Ribeirão Preto, SP, CEP 14040-904, Brazil. ferpanzeri@usp.br.
Abstract
AIM: Evaluate the influence of enamel pre-treatment using Biosilicate, associated or not to other treatments; on the bond strength (BS) of pit-and-fissure sealant, with or without saliva contamination. METHODS: Ninety slices (4 mm × 4 mm) were obtained from 30 bovine incisors. Each slice was embedded in acrylic resin with their buccal surface exposed and polished to obtain a flat enamel surface. Half of them were contaminated with human saliva. All specimens were randomly divided into five groups (n = 9) according to the surface pre-treatment tested: acid etching (AE); AE + Biosilicate (B); AE + B + total-etch adhesive (Ad); Biosilicate; control (no treatment). Then, a 1 mm layer of sealant (Clinpro XT Varnish, 3M ESPE) was applied; and to provide support, a composite resin (Opallis, FGM) block was built up over it. Samples were thermocycled (500 cycles/5-55 °C) and sectioned obtaining sticks (1 × 1 × 10 mm) for microtensile BS testing (0.5 mm/min). Data were analysed with two-way ANOVA, Bonferroni test, p < 0.05. Failure patterns were evaluated using a stereomicroscope. RESULTS: There was no difference among contaminated and non-contaminated groups, and between non-contaminated groups (p > 0.05). When contaminated, AE + B + Ad Group showed the highest BS values, differing (p < 0.05) from B Group and Control; similar between them (p > 0.05). Cohesive fractures were found in AE + B + Ad Group, submitted or not to contamination. CONCLUSIONS: Since a surface pre-treatment was used, whether Biosilicate was applied or not, the sealant/enamel BS was the same in saliva-contaminated or non-contaminated enamel.
AIM: Evaluate the influence of enamel pre-treatment using Biosilicate, associated or not to other treatments; on the bond strength (BS) of pit-and-fissure sealant, with or without saliva contamination. METHODS: Ninety slices (4 mm × 4 mm) were obtained from 30 bovine incisors. Each slice was embedded in acrylic resin with their buccal surface exposed and polished to obtain a flat enamel surface. Half of them were contaminated with human saliva. All specimens were randomly divided into five groups (n = 9) according to the surface pre-treatment tested: acid etching (AE); AE + Biosilicate (B); AE + B + total-etch adhesive (Ad); Biosilicate; control (no treatment). Then, a 1 mm layer of sealant (Clinpro XT Varnish, 3M ESPE) was applied; and to provide support, a composite resin (Opallis, FGM) block was built up over it. Samples were thermocycled (500 cycles/5-55 °C) and sectioned obtaining sticks (1 × 1 × 10 mm) for microtensile BS testing (0.5 mm/min). Data were analysed with two-way ANOVA, Bonferroni test, p < 0.05. Failure patterns were evaluated using a stereomicroscope. RESULTS: There was no difference among contaminated and non-contaminated groups, and between non-contaminated groups (p > 0.05). When contaminated, AE + B + Ad Group showed the highest BS values, differing (p < 0.05) from B Group and Control; similar between them (p > 0.05). Cohesive fractures were found in AE + B + Ad Group, submitted or not to contamination. CONCLUSIONS: Since a surface pre-treatment was used, whether Biosilicate was applied or not, the sealant/enamel BS was the same in saliva-contaminated or non-contaminated enamel.
Entities:
Keywords:
Biosilicate; Bond strength; Dental enamel; Fissure sealants