Abstract
Objectives
To assess amounts of residual dentine retained after using three excavation techniques; the microtensile bond strengths (μTBS) to residual dentine, comparing etch-rinse vs. self-etching adhesives.
Methods
42 carious molars were subdivided (N = 21) dependent upon adhesive/composite system (Adper Scotchbond 1XT and Filtek Supreme vs. Filtek Silorane adhesive and composite). Dividing into three (N = 7), dependent upon caries excavation technique employed (hand vs. chemo-mechanical: Carisolv™ gel vs. experimental enzymatic gel (SFC-V)), caries removal was assessed using visual/tactile criteria and in situ autofluorescence (AF) confocal fibre-optic micro-endoscopy (CFOME). Post-restoration/four-week hydrated storage, four 0.9 mm2 beams per tooth underwent μTBS testing/microscopic analysis of fractured surfaces. Three cavities from each excavation group were analysed using SEM.
Results
SEM revealed surface roughness with smear layer occluding tubule orifices in hand-excavated samples and a reduced, variable smear layer for both chemo-mechanical systems. CFOME AF assessment indicated hand excavation left sound dentine, Carisolv™ left affected dentine and SFC-V slightly under-prepared clinically. Mean μTBS values from etch-rinse samples (27 MPa (SD 3.9), hand; 22 MPa (SD 5.1), Carisolv™; 26 MPa (SD 4.4), SFC-V) showed statistical differences between hand and Carisolv™ groups. Mean μTBS data for self-etch samples (22 MPa (SD 3.3), hand; 27 MPa (SD 6.1), Carisolv™; 25 MPa (SD 4.7), SFC-V) showed significant differences between hand and Carisolv™, and hand vs. SFC-V. Failure loci distribution in etch-rinse samples was between dentine–adhesive, within adhesive and within composite whereas self-etch samples exhibited failure predominantly between adhesive and composite.
Conclusions
Data indicated that all null hypotheses were disproved.
To assess amounts of residual dentine retained after using three excavation techniques; the microtensile bond strengths (μTBS) to residual dentine, comparing etch-rinse vs. self-etching adhesives.
Methods
42 carious molars were subdivided (N = 21) dependent upon adhesive/composite system (Adper Scotchbond 1XT and Filtek Supreme vs. Filtek Silorane adhesive and composite). Dividing into three (N = 7), dependent upon caries excavation technique employed (hand vs. chemo-mechanical: Carisolv™ gel vs. experimental enzymatic gel (SFC-V)), caries removal was assessed using visual/tactile criteria and in situ autofluorescence (AF) confocal fibre-optic micro-endoscopy (CFOME). Post-restoration/four-week hydrated storage, four 0.9 mm2 beams per tooth underwent μTBS testing/microscopic analysis of fractured surfaces. Three cavities from each excavation group were analysed using SEM.
Results
SEM revealed surface roughness with smear layer occluding tubule orifices in hand-excavated samples and a reduced, variable smear layer for both chemo-mechanical systems. CFOME AF assessment indicated hand excavation left sound dentine, Carisolv™ left affected dentine and SFC-V slightly under-prepared clinically. Mean μTBS values from etch-rinse samples (27 MPa (SD 3.9), hand; 22 MPa (SD 5.1), Carisolv™; 26 MPa (SD 4.4), SFC-V) showed statistical differences between hand and Carisolv™ groups. Mean μTBS data for self-etch samples (22 MPa (SD 3.3), hand; 27 MPa (SD 6.1), Carisolv™; 25 MPa (SD 4.7), SFC-V) showed significant differences between hand and Carisolv™, and hand vs. SFC-V. Failure loci distribution in etch-rinse samples was between dentine–adhesive, within adhesive and within composite whereas self-etch samples exhibited failure predominantly between adhesive and composite.
Conclusions
Data indicated that all null hypotheses were disproved.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 480-489 |
| Number of pages | 10 |
| Journal | Journal of Dentistry |
| Volume | 38 |
| Issue number | 6 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Jun 2010 |