Search

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the interfacial micromorphology of direct esthetic restorations bonded to primary or permanent tooth dentin with a self-etching primer adhesive system., Methods: Superficial dentin at the occlusal surface of 15 primary and 15 permanent molars was exposed with a carbide bur. Prompt-L-Pop was applied in one half of each surface. A control bonding system, Single Bond or Vitremer Primer, was used in the other half Teeth were restored either with a composite resin (Filtek Z250), a compomer (Hytac), or a resin-modified glass ionomer (Vitremer). Twenty-five scanning electron microscope fields from 5 teeth were evaluated blindly by two investigators for each condition., Results: In this study, a significant difference in quality of the interfacial seal was not observed when restorations performed in primary teeth were compared to restorations in permanent teeth. Interfacial gaps were observed in most restorations bonded with Prompt-L-Pop and restored with Filtek Z250 (9/10), Hytac (9/10), or Vitremer (5/10). No interfacial gaps were observed in teeth bonded with Single Bond and restored with Filtek Z250 (0/10) or Hytac (0/10), while all teeth bonded with Vitremer Primer and restored with Vitremer presented gaps (10/10). To understand the reason for the interfacial gaps observed with Prompt-L-Pop, we examined if this system generated a hybrid layer at the dentin/restorative material interface. All surfaces bonded with Single Bond and restored with Filtek Z250 or Hytac presented a visible hybrid layer. In contrast, 0/10 (Z250) and only 3/10 (Hytac) restorations bonded with Prompt-L-Pop showed signs of a hybrid layer., Conclusion: The self-etching primer adhesive system Prompt-L-Pop failed to generate sealed interfaces consistently between the dentin of primary and permanent teeth and the composite resin or the compomer evaluated in this study.

The literature suggest differences between primary and permanent teeth regarding the composition and morphology of the dentin. The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of two dentin conditioners on the micromorphology of the dentin surface of primary and permanent teeth. Human extracted and noncarious molars were divided into four groups and conditioned with either 10% phosphoric acid (All-Bond 2) or 10% maleic acid (Scotchbond Multi-Purpose) for different time periods. SEM photomicrographs (1500x) were taken from the conditioned dentin and evaluated blindly by three calibrated examiners. The results indicate that the smear layer was removed more easily from primary teeth than from permanent teeth (P = 0.0001), which suggests greater reactivity to acidic dentin conditioners. We also found that the longer the time of application of dentin conditioner the more smear layer is removed (P = 0.0094). In comparing primary and permanent dentin, the results of this study indicate that less time is required for appropriate acid conditioning of primary dentin surfaces. Such a differentiated protocol for bonding to primary tooth dentin results in surface morphological characteristics similar to those found in conditioned permanent teeth.