Journal of Dentistry
Volume 38, Issue 4 , Pages 276-283, April 2010

Six-month evaluation of adhesives interface created by a hydrophobic adhesive to acid-etched ethanol-wet bonded dentine with simplified dehydration protocols

  • Fernanda T. Sadek

      Affiliations

    • Department of Dental Materials, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Av. Prof. Lineu Prestes, 2227, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +55 11 3091 7840; fax: +55 11 3091 7842x201.
  • ,
  • Annalisa Mazzoni

      Affiliations

    • Department of SAU&FAL, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
  • ,
  • Lorenzo Breschi

      Affiliations

    • Division of Dental Sciences and Biomaterials, Department of Biomedicine, University of Trieste, Trieste and IGM-CNR, Unit of Bologna c/o IOR, Bologna, Italy
  • ,
  • Franklin R. Tay

      Affiliations

    • Department of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA, USA
  • ,
  • Roberto R. Braga

      Affiliations

    • Department of Dental Materials, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Av. Prof. Lineu Prestes, 2227, São Paulo, SP, Brazil

Received 21 October 2009; received in revised form 21 November 2009; accepted 23 November 2009. published online 07 December 2009.

Abstract 

Objectives

To evaluate the efficacy of simplified dehydration protocols, in the absence of tubular occlusion, on bond strength and interfacial nanoleakage of a hydrophobic experimental adhesive blend to acid-etched, ethanol-dehydrated dentine immediately and after 6 months.

Methods

Molars were randomly assigned to 6 treatment groups (n=5). Under pulpal pressure simulation, dentine crowns were acid-etched with 35% H3PO4 and rinsed with water. Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose was used for the control group. The remaining groups had their dentine surface dehydrated with ethanol solutions: group 1=50%, 70%, 80%, 95% and 3×100%, 30s for each application; group 2 the same ethanol sequence with 15s for each solution; groups 3, 4 and 5 used 100% ethanol only, applied in seven, three or one 30s step, respectively. After dehydration, a primer (50% BisGMA+TEGDMA, 50% ethanol) was used, followed by the neat comonomer adhesive application. Resin composite build-ups were then prepared using an incremental technique. Specimens were stored for 24h, sectioned into beams and stressed to failure after 24h or after 6 months of artificial ageing. Interfacial silver leakage evaluation was performed for both storage periods (n=5 per subgroup).

Results

Group 1 showed higher bond strengths at 24h or after 6 months of ageing (45.6±5.9a/43.1±3.2aMPa) and lower silver impregnation. Bond strength results were statistically similar to control group (41.2±3.3ab/38.3±4.0abMPa), group 2 (40.0±3.1ab/38.6±3.2abMPa), and group 3 at 24h (35.5±4.3abMPa). Groups 4 (34.6±5.7bc/25.9±4.1cMPa) and 5 (24.7±4.9c/18.2±4.2cMPa) resulted in lower bond strengths, extensive interfacial nanoleakage and more prominent reductions (up to 25%) in bond strengths after 6 months of ageing.

Conclusions

Simplified dehydration protocols using one or three 100% ethanol applications should be avoided for the ethanol-wet bonding technique in the absence of tubular occlusion, as they showed decreased bond strength, more severe nanoleakage and reduced bond stability over time.

Keywords: Bond strength, Interfacial nanoleakage, Ethanol-wet bonding, Dentine

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0300-5712(09)00260-7

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2009.11.007

Journal of Dentistry
Volume 38, Issue 4 , Pages 276-283, April 2010