Cíntia Tereza Pimenta Araújo

Nanoleakage evaluation of resin luting systems to dental enamel and leucite-reinforced ceramic

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the nanoleakage patterns between dental enamel and reinforced leucite ceramic, bonded with resin luting systems and a flowable composite resin. Materials and Methods: Twelve crowns of bovine incisors were randomly divided into four groups (n = 3) according to the luting procedure: Excite/Variolink II, Clearfil SE Bond/Panavia F, Scotchbond Multi‐Purpose Plus/RelyX ARC, and Single Bond 2/Filtek Z350 Flow. To evaluate the nanoleakage patterns, IPS Empress Esthetic disks (5 mm Ø and 1.2‐mm thick) were bonded to enamel, and, after 24 h, the specimens were immersed in a 50% (w/v) solution of silver nitrate (24 h), fixed, dehydrated, and processed scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Results: None nanoleakage on interface of the groups that Single Bond 2 followed by the flowable composite were used. The highest percentage of nanoleakage was shown by the Excite/Variolink II protocol. Also, in all conditions tested, none silver nitrate uptake was observed between the leucite‐reinforced ceramic and the resin luting cement. Conclusions: The use of a two‐step etch‐and‐rinse adhesive with flowable composite was able to promote an adequate seal of the bond interface at the enamel. Moreover, the conventional dual‐cured resin cements associated with simplified and dual‐cured adhesives tested are also indicated to bond thin ceramics to enamel, since all presented low silver nitrate uptake. Microsc. Res. Tech., 2012.

Knoop Hardness and Effectiveness of Dual‐Cured Luting Systems and Flowable Resin to Bond Leucite‐Reinforced Ceramic to Enamel

PURPOSE The aim of this study was to evaluate the Knoop microhardness and microshear bond strength (MSBS) of dual-cured luting systems and flowable resin bonded to leucite-reinforced ceramics and enamel. MATERIALS AND METHODS Eighty bovine incisors were randomly divided into four groups per test (microhardness and microshear; n = 10) according to the bonding procedure: Excite DSC/Variolink, Clearfil SE Bond/Panavia F, Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus/RelyX ARC, and Adper Single Bond 2/Filtek Z350 Flow. For the KHN measurement, the cement was applied on the enamel surface and light-cured through a ceramic disk (5 mm diameter × 1.2 mm thick). Five indentations were performed in each specimen and measured at HMV-2. For the microshear test, two cylinders of a leucite-reinforced ceramic (1 mm diameter × 2 mm height) were bonded to the enamel substrate in accordance with the bonding procedures previously established. One cylinder was tested 24 hours after cementation, and the other was subjected to thermocycling (2000 cycles) and then submitted to an MSBS test. The data from the hardness and bond strength tests were subjected to one- and two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), respectively, and to Tukeys test (α= 0.05). RESULTS Scotchbond/RelyX ARC presented higher values of bond strength, while Single Bond/Z350 Flow showed lower values. The thermocycling promoted a reduction in the bond strength values for all groups. Panavia F presented higher values of KHN, and the flowable resin presented the lowest. RelyX ARC and Variolink presented intermediate values on hardness evaluation. CONCLUSIONS For ceramic cementation, dual-cured resin luting systems promoted more reliable bonding and microhardness values than the flowable resin.

Influence of photo-curing distance on bond strength and nanoleakage of self-etching adhesive bonds to enamel and dentin

Abstract Objectives. To assess the influence of light-curing unit tip distance on the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) and nanoleakage of self-etching adhesives to enamel and dentin. Materials and methods. Flat buccal surfaces were prepared on 198 bovine incisors. The teeth were randomly assigned into nine groups for μTBS (n = 8) and nanoleakage (n = 3) testing according to the adhesive system (Clearfil Protect Bond, Clearfil Tri-S Bond or One Up Bond F Plus) and distance from the light-curing tip (0, 3 or 6 mm). The bonded samples were tested in tension (0.5 mm/min) and nanoleakage was analyzed using SEM. Results. Clearfil Protect Bond exhibited the highest tensile strength on both enamel and dentin. Leakage was higher in samples exposed at a distance of 6 mm on enamel and 0 mm on dentin. One Up Bond F Plus experienced the greatest amount of nanoleakage on both substrates. Conclusions. Light-curing unit distance did not influence the μTBS of the adhesives, but nanoleakage increased on enamel samples when photoactivation occurred at a distance of 6 mm.

Influence of the LED curing source and selective enamel etching on dentin bond strength of self-etch adhesives in class I composite restorations

The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of the LED curing unit and selective enamel etching on dentin microtensile bond strength (μTBS) for self-etch adhesives in class I composite restorations. On 96 human molars, box-shaped class I cavities were made maintaining enamel margins. Self-etch adhesives (Clearfil SE – CSE and Clearfil S3 – S3) were used to bond a microhybrid composite. Before adhesive application, half of the teeth were enamel acid-etched and the other half was not. Adhesives and composites were cured with the following light curing units (LCUs): one polywave (UltraLume 5 - UL) and two single-peak (FlashLite 1401 - FL and Radii Cal - RD) LEDs. The specimens were then submitted to thermomechanical aging and longitudinally sectioned to obtain bonded sticks (0.9 mm2) to be tested in tension at 0.5 mm/min. The failure mode was then recorded. The μTBS data were submitted to a three-way ANOVA and Tukey’s (α = 0.05). For S3, the selective enamel-etching provided lower μTBS values (20.7 ± 2.7) compared to the non-etched specimens (26.7 ± 2.2). UL yielded higher μTBS values (24.1 ± 3.2) in comparison to the photoactivation approach with FL (18.8 ±3.9) and RD (19.9 ±1.8) for CSE. The two-step CSE was not influenced by the enamel etching (p ≥ 0.05). Enamel acid etching in class I composite restorations affects the dentin μTBS of the one-step self-etch adhesive Clearfil S3, with no alterations for Clearfil SE bond strength. The polywave LED promoted better bond strength for the two-step adhesive compared to the single-peak ones.

Active application of primer acid on acid-treated enamel: Influence on the bond effectiveness of self-etch adhesives systems

Aim: Evaluate the composite‐to‐enamel bond after passive or active application of self‐etching primer systems on polished or pre‐etched enamel with phosphoric acid. Materials and Methods: Two self‐etch adhesives systems (SEAS) were used: Clearfil SE Bond and Easy Bond. Third human molars were divided into 8 groups (N = 10). The crown of each tooth was sectioned into halves and the mesial/distal surfaces were used. The adhesives were actively or passively applied on enamel with or without prior phosphoric‐acid etching. Resin composite cylinders were built after adhesive application. After stored in relative humidity for 24 hr/37°C the specimens were subjected to microshear test in universal testing a machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/minute. The results were analyzed with three‐way ANOVA and the Tukey test. The enamel‐etching pattern was evaluated under SEM. Results: The 2‐step SEAS system presented significantly higher adhesive bond strength means (47.37 MPa) than the 1‐step (36.87 MPa). A poor enamel‐ etching pattern was observed in active mode showing irregular and short resin tags, however there was not compromised the bond strength. Conclusion: Active or passive application produced similar values of bond strength to enamel regardless of enamel pretreatment and type of SEAS.

Influence of Fluorescent Dye on Physical-Mechanical Properties of Luting Cements for Confocal Microscopy Analysis

Aims: To evaluate the influence of a fluorescent dye (rhodamine B) on the physical and mechanical properties of three different luting cements: a conventional adhesive luting cement (RelyX ARC, 3M/ESPE), a self‐adhesive luting cement (RelyX U‐200, 3M/ESPE), and a self‐etching and self‐adhesive luting cement (SeT PP, SDI). Materials and Methods: The cements were mixed with 0.03 wt% rhodamine B, formed into bar‐shaped specimens (n = 10), and light cured using an LED curing unit (Radii, SDI) with a radiant exposure of 32 J/cm2. The Knoop hardness (KHN), flexural strength (FS), and Youngs modulus (YM) analyses were evaluated after storage for 24 h. Results: Outcomes were subjected to two‐way ANOVA and Tukeys test (P = 0.05) for multiple comparisons. No significant differences in FS or YM were observed among the tested groups (P ≥ 0.05); the addition of rhodamine B increased the hardness of the luting cements tested. Conclusion: The addition of a fluorescent agent at 0.03 wt% concentration does not negatively affect the physical–mechanical properties of the luting cement polymerization behavior. Microsc. Res. Tech. 77:986–988, 2014.