Microshear bond strength of composite resin to demineralized dentin after remineralization with sodium fluoride, CPP-ACP and NovaMin containing dentifrices.
Demineralization
Dentin-bonding agents
Non-carious cervical lesions
Remineralization
Shear strength
Tooth erosion
Journal
Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research
ISSN: 2212-4268
Titre abrégé: J Oral Biol Craniofac Res
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101619156
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
received:
27
03
2019
revised:
19
02
2020
accepted:
09
03
2020
entrez:
18
4
2020
pubmed:
18
4
2020
medline:
18
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Bonding composite to remineralized dentin is challenging. The aim of this study was to evaluate the microshear bond strength (μSBS) of composite to demineralized dentin, which had been remineralized with sodium fluoride (NaF), CPP-ACP and NovaMin containing dentifrices. 108 extracted human premolars or molars were sectioned longitudinally into buccal and lingual halves (n = 216). Dentin (3 × 3 mm) was exposed on the cervical aspect of teeth and the samples were allotted randomly to six groups (n = 36) according to the remineralizing agent used namely, group 1 (sound dentin), group 2 (demineralized dentin), group 3 (NaF), group 4 (CPP-ACP), group 5 (NovaMin) and group 6 (non-fluoridated). The type of bonding system (total-etch or self-etch) formed the subgroups. Samples in groups 2-6 were submitted to an acid challenge for 3 days followed by remineralization in groups 3-6 for 90 days. Etching pattern (n = 3) was observed under SEM. μSBS of the bonded samples (n = 15) were evaluated. The data were statistically analyzed using Kruskal Wallis and Dunn's Post Hoc tests (p < 0.05). SEM micrographs of remineralized samples showed varying degrees of partially occluded and exposed dentinal tubules. Under both the adhesives, the mean μSBS of composite in groups 2-6 was lesser than that of group 1. Among self-etch subgroups, μSBS of NaF group was not significantly different from that of normal dentin. Composite forms a weaker bond to remineralized dentin. Self-etch bonding system is capable of achieving acceptable bond strength to dentin remineralized with NaF and NovaMin.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Bonding composite to remineralized dentin is challenging. The aim of this study was to evaluate the microshear bond strength (μSBS) of composite to demineralized dentin, which had been remineralized with sodium fluoride (NaF), CPP-ACP and NovaMin containing dentifrices.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
108 extracted human premolars or molars were sectioned longitudinally into buccal and lingual halves (n = 216). Dentin (3 × 3 mm) was exposed on the cervical aspect of teeth and the samples were allotted randomly to six groups (n = 36) according to the remineralizing agent used namely, group 1 (sound dentin), group 2 (demineralized dentin), group 3 (NaF), group 4 (CPP-ACP), group 5 (NovaMin) and group 6 (non-fluoridated). The type of bonding system (total-etch or self-etch) formed the subgroups. Samples in groups 2-6 were submitted to an acid challenge for 3 days followed by remineralization in groups 3-6 for 90 days. Etching pattern (n = 3) was observed under SEM. μSBS of the bonded samples (n = 15) were evaluated. The data were statistically analyzed using Kruskal Wallis and Dunn's Post Hoc tests (p < 0.05).
RESULTS
RESULTS
SEM micrographs of remineralized samples showed varying degrees of partially occluded and exposed dentinal tubules. Under both the adhesives, the mean μSBS of composite in groups 2-6 was lesser than that of group 1. Among self-etch subgroups, μSBS of NaF group was not significantly different from that of normal dentin.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Composite forms a weaker bond to remineralized dentin. Self-etch bonding system is capable of achieving acceptable bond strength to dentin remineralized with NaF and NovaMin.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32300520
doi: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2020.03.007
pii: S2212-4268(20)30025-7
pmc: PMC7152678
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
122-127Informations de copyright
© 2020 Craniofacial Research Foundation. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
None.
Références
Clin Oral Investig. 2012 Oct;16(5):1451-61
pubmed: 22146968
Saudi Dent J. 2012 Apr;24(2):63-9
pubmed: 23960531
Caries Res. 1967;1(4):310-7
pubmed: 5241870
J Dent Res. 1992 Aug;71(8):1530-40
pubmed: 1506519
J Dent. 2010 May;38(5):400-10
pubmed: 20097250
Oper Dent. 2003 Mar-Apr;28(2):186-92
pubmed: 12670075
Quintessence Int. 2013 Jul;44(7):535-46
pubmed: 23616976
J Dent Res. 2004 Jun;83(6):454-8
pubmed: 15153451
J Am Dent Assoc. 2006 Jul;137(7):990-8; quiz 1028-9
pubmed: 16803826
Dent Update. 1992 Dec;19(10):407-8, 410-2
pubmed: 1303354
J Dent Res. 1994 Jun;73(6):1197-204
pubmed: 8046109
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2018 May;81:214-221
pubmed: 29550716
J Oral Rehabil. 2004 Apr;31(4):351-6
pubmed: 15089941
Braz Dent J. 2017 Mar-Apr;28(2):216-224
pubmed: 28492753
Gerodontics. 1988 Apr;4(2):101-3
pubmed: 3209026
Proc Finn Dent Soc. 1992;88 Suppl 1:337-44
pubmed: 1387227
Am J Dent. 2005 Dec;18(6):307-10
pubmed: 16433396
Clin Oral Investig. 2013 Apr;17(3):799-804
pubmed: 22797530
J Dent Res. 2003 Sep;82(9):703-7
pubmed: 12939354
J Dent Res. 1996 Jun;75(6):1404-13
pubmed: 8831636
Br Dent J. 1984 Jul 7;157(1):16-9
pubmed: 6588978
J Dent Res. 1996 Mar;75(3):879-88
pubmed: 8675798
J Prosthet Dent. 1992 May;67(5):718-22
pubmed: 1527763
Dent Mater. 2010 Feb;26(2):e50-62
pubmed: 20045179