O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar a influência do modo de aplicação de três sistemas adesivos universais nas propriedades físicas interfaciais de restaurações indiretas de compósito adesivamente cimentadas a cavidades dentinária. Setenta e oito incisivos inferiores bovinos foram selecionados e uma fatia de dentina (espessura: 2 mm) entre a face vestibular e a câmara pulpar foi obtida para cada dente. Cavidades cônicas foram feitas nesta superfície. As paredes internas das cavidades foram então revestidas com um gel hidrofílico, preenchidas com resina composta, e fotopolimerizados. Os conjuntos dentina/cone foram divididos em 6 grupos (n=10) de acordo com o tipo de adesivo universal (TETRI: Tetric N Bond, FUT: Futura Bond U, SBU: Single Bond Universal) e ácido na dentina (A: com condicionamento ácido; WA: sem condicionamento ácido). O condicionamento ácido e os sistemas adesivos foram aplicados na superfície da dentina. Todos os cones de resina composta foram jateados (Al2O3, 20 s) e silanizados. Após o tratamento superficial, os cones foram cimentados (RelyX Ultimate) na cavidade dentinária e fotopolimerizados. Após a termociclagem (10.000 ciclos), as amostras foram submetidas a análise de adaptação marginal (usando corante detector de carie), teste push-out (0,5 mm/min) e análise do modo de falha. Amostras adicionais foram preparadas para análise de nanoinfiltração (MEV). Os dados (MPa) foram analisados por ANOVA dois fatores e pós-teste de Tukey (5%). Os grupos em que a dentina foi condicionada por ácido apresentaram valores significativamente menores de resistência de união no teste push-out (p<0,01). O condicionamento ácido da dentina reduziu significativamente a resistência de união entre sistemas adesivos universais e dentina em procedimentos restauradores indiretos.
Autoria
person Maria de Fátima T. P. Campos
person Dayanne Monielle Duarte Moura
person Boniek Castillo Dutra Borges
person Isauremi Vieira de Assuncao
person Marilia Regalado Galvão Rabelo Caldas
person Jeffrey A. Platt
person Mutlu Özcan
schoolUniversity of Zurich, Center for Dental and Oral Medicine, Dental Materials Unit, Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Materials Science, Zurich, SwitzerlandUniversity of ZurichSwitzerlandZurich, SwitzerlandUniversity of Zurich, Center for Dental and Oral Medicine, Dental Materials Unit, Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Materials Science, Zurich, Switzerland
person Rodrigo Othávio de Assunção e Souza
Correspondente: Dayanne Monielle Duarte Moura, DDs, MSc, PhD, Avenida Salgado Filho, 1787, 59056-000 Natal, RN, Brasil. Tel: +55-84-3342-2317. e-mail: d.monielle@hotmail.com
SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS
Department of Dentistry, UFRN - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, RN, BrazilUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do NorteBrazilNatal, RN, BrazilDepartment of Dentistry, UFRN - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, RN, Brazil
Department of Biomedical and Applied Sciences, Indiana University School of Dentistry, Indianapolis, IN, USAIndiana University School of DentistryUSAIndianapolis, IN, USADepartment of Biomedical and Applied Sciences, Indiana University School of Dentistry, Indianapolis, IN, USA
University of Zurich, Center for Dental and Oral Medicine, Dental Materials Unit, Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Materials Science, Zurich, SwitzerlandUniversity of ZurichSwitzerlandZurich, SwitzerlandUniversity of Zurich, Center for Dental and Oral Medicine, Dental Materials Unit, Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Materials Science, Zurich, Switzerland
Figuras | Tabelas
imageFigure 1 Sample preparation for the push-out test. open_in_new

imageFigure 2 Box Plot of medians (Q1-Q3) of marginal adaptation of the three adhesive systems in both sides of the specimen according to etching acid: etching (A) and no etching (B) . Uppercase letters indicate significant differences between with and without acid conditioning, in the same adhesive, and same side. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences between different adhesive system, in the same side and with the same acid protocol (acid conditioning or no acid-conditioning). *significant differences between different sides. open_in_new

imageFigure 3 Representative EDS / SEM (200-1000×) micrographs of nanoleakage at the cement/dentin/resin interface after adhesive universal with and without acid conditioning. A: Futura Bond U with acid conditioning; B: Futura Bond U without acid conditioning; C: Scotch Bond Universal (SBU) applied with acid conditioning; D: SBU without acid conditioning; E: Tetric N-Bond Universal with acid conditioning; F: Tetric N-Bond Universal without acid conditioning. Δ: Dentin; *: composite resin →: silver ions at the interface, ◊: resin cement. open_in_new

imageFigure 4 Stereomicroscopy (20×) micrograph representing failure modes. A: cohesive failure in cement and adhesive failure at the cement/dentin interface; B: cohesive failure in cement and adhesive failure at the cement/resin interface; C: adhesive failure at the cement/dentin interface; D: cohesive failure in dentin and adhesive failure at the cement/dentin interface. Right: composite resin cone; Left: dentin. open_in_new

table_chartTable 1
Trademarks, manufacturers, chemical composition, and batch number of the materials used in the study
| Trademark | Type | Manufacturer | Chemical composition | Batch # |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Single Bond Universal | Adhesive system | 3M ESPE, USA | MDP (1-10%), dimethacrylate (15-25%), HEMA, vitrebond copolymer (1-5%), filer, etanol (25-30%), water (10-15%), initiators, and silane (5-15%) | 1513900170 |
| Tetric N Bond Universal | Adhesive system | Ivoclar Vivadent, Brazil | BisGMA (25- 50%), Water and Ethanol (10-<25%), 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) (10-<25%), Phosphonic acid methacrylate (MDP) (10-<25%), Diphenyl (2,4,6- trimethylbenzoyl) phosphine oxide (1-<2.5%) Urethane dimethacrylate (0.3-<10) | V11838 |
| Futurabond U | Adhesive system | Voco, Germany | Liquid 1: HEMA (25-50%), Bis-GMA (25-50%), HEDMA (10-25%), acidic adhesive phosphate monomer (5-10%) Urethane dimethacrylate (5-10%), catalyst (<2.5%). Liquid 2: etanol (50-100%), Initiator (2.5-5%) catalyst (1-2 - 5%) | 1519237 |
| RelyX Ultimate | Resin cement | 3M ESPE, USA | Silane treated glass powder (50-60%) 2-propenoic acid (2-methyl-,1,1-[1-(hydroxymethyl)-1, 2-ethanediyl]- ester, reaction products with 2-hydroxy-1,3-propanediyl DMA and phosphorus oxide (20-30%), TEGDMA(10-20%), silane treated sílica (1-10%), oxide glass chemicals (<3%), sodium persulfate (<1%), tert-butyl peroxy-3,5,5-trimethylhexanoate (<0.25%), copper (2+) acetate monohydrate, acetic acid (<0.1%) | 1625600718 |
| Phosphoric acid (37%) | Dental conditioning gel 37%. | Dentsply, Brazil | Phosphoric acid, colloidal silica, Surfactant, and pigment. | 0564488H |
| Opallis | Macrohybrid composite resin: (A2) | FGM, Brazil | Bis-GMA monomers (bisphenol A diglycidildimethacrylate 6-8%) BisEMA (ethoxylated bisphenol A diglycidildimethacrylate 5-10%), TEGDMA (<5%) ( triethylene glycol dimethacrylate ), UDMA (5-10 urethane dimethacrylate ), canphorquinone (<1), co-initiator e silane (5-10%), silanized ceramic (65-75%), pigments e silica. | 071215 |
table_chartTable 2
Means (SD) of the push out strength values in the studied groups
| Adhesive system | Acid conditioned | No acid-conditioned |
|---|---|---|
| Tetric N Bond | 5.54(3.5)bB | 12.67(6.3)aA |
| Futura Bond | 6.34(2.9)bB | 10.70 (4.2)aA |
| Scotch Bond Universal | 5.09(1.9)bB | 10.22(3.9)aA |
table_chartTable 3
Number (N) and percentage (%) of pre-test failure (PTF) during thermal aging, total number of samples submitted to the push-out bond strength test, and failure mode (%) of the groups after bond strength test
| Adesive/acid (A) or without acid (WA) | Number of samples | N and% of spontaneous PTF during aging | N and % of tested samples | Percentage by failure mode | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AD | AR | C1 | C2 | C3 | Mixed | Total | ||||
| Fut/A | 10 | 0 (0) | 10 (100) | 2 | - | - | - | - | 8 | 100% |
| Fut/WA | 10 | 0 (0) | 10 (100) | - | - | - | - | - | 10 | 100% |
| Sbu/A | 10 | 0 (0) | 10 (100) | 3 | - | - | 1 | - | 6 | 100% |
| Sbu/WA | 10 | 0 (0) | 10 (100) | - | - | - | - | - | 10 | 100% |
| Tetri/A | 10 | 0 | 10(100) | - | - | - | 1 | - | 9 | 100% |
| Tetri/WA | 10 | 0 | 10 (100) | - | - | - | - | - | 10 | 100% |
-
AD = adhesive failure between dentin and cement; AR: Adhesive failure between cement and composite resin C1 = cohesive failure in dentin; C2 = cohesive failure in composite resin; C3 = cohesive failure in cement; Mixed: (Cohesive + AR or AD).
Como citar
location_on
Fundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto
Av. do Café, S/N, 14040-904 Ribeirão Preto SP Brasil, Tel.: (55 16) 3602-3982, Fax: (55 16) 3633-0999 -
Ribeirão Preto -
SP -
Brazil
E-mail: bdj@forp.usp.br
E-mail: bdj@forp.usp.br
rss_feed
Acompañe los números de esta revista en su lector de RSS
Versão para download de PDF
Artículos relacionados
Lista de links para artigos relacionados. Os links abrem em nova aba.
Versões e tradução automática
Escolha a versão original do texto ou utilize um serviço de tradução automática.
Versão original do texto
Como citar
Escolha um formato para exportar ou selecione um estilo de citação. O conteúdo abaixo pode ser atualizado após a seleção.
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail