1. Effect of Different Adhesive Systems Used for Immediate Dentin Sealing on Bond Strength of a Self-Adhesive Resin Cement to Dentin.
- Author
-
Ferreira-Filho RC, Ely C, Amaral RC, Rodrigues JA, Roulet JF, Cassoni A, and Reis AF
- Subjects
- Dental Stress Analysis, Dentin Sensitivity prevention & control, Humans, In Vitro Techniques, Molar, Third, Dental Bonding methods, Dental Cements chemistry, Dentin-Bonding Agents chemistry, Resin Cements chemistry
- Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the immediate and three-month water storage behavior of adhesives when used for immediate dentin sealing (IDS)., Methods and Materials: Four adhesive systems were used to perform IDS: a one-step self-etch (Xeno V), a two-step self-etch (Clearfil SE Bond), a two-step etch-and-rinse (XP Bond), and a three-step etch-and-rinse (Optibond FL). For the control group, IDS was not performed. The self-adhesive resin cement RelyX Unicem was used for the luting procedures. After seven days of water storage, specimens (n=6) were sectioned into beams (n=5) with an approximately 1-mm
2 cross-sectional area. Half of the specimens were tested in tension after seven days of water storage at 37°C, while the other half was stored for three months prior to testing in tension using a universal testing machine (1 mm/min). The failure pattern was determined using a stereomicroscope and scanning electron microscopy. Microtensile bond strength (μTBS) data were statistically analyzed by two-way analysis of variance and Tukey post hoc test (α=0.05)., Results: After seven days, the control group presented the lowest μTBS but did not differ from XP Bond and Clearfil SE Bond. After three months, there was no μTBS difference between the IDS groups and the control., Conclusions: After seven days of water storage, the groups with IDS presented higher μTBS values than the control group, although XP Bond and Clearfil SE Bond did not present significant differences. However, after three months of storage in water, IDS groups did not differ significantly from control group, which did not receive IDS.- Published
- 2018
- Full Text
- View/download PDF