Avaliação da resistência de união ao esmalte e à dentina de diferentes sistemas adesivos com carga
Bond strength evaluation of different adhesive systems with fillers to enamel and dentin
Francescantonio, M.; Aguiar, T.R.; Araújo, C.T.P.; Paulillo, L.A.M.S.; Giannini, M.; Marchi, G.M.; Aguiar, F.H.B.
Rev. odontol. UNESP, vol.37, n2, p.171-176, 2008
Resumo
O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar a resistência de união (RU) ao esmalte e à dentina bovinos de sistemas adesivos com partículas de carga, sendo dois com condicionamento ácido prévio (Adper Single Bond 2 – 3M ESPE (SB) e Solobond M – Voco (SM)); e dois autocondicionantes (Adper Prompt L-Pop – 3M ESPE (ADP) e Futurabond NR/SD – Voco (FUT)), através do teste de microcisalhamento. Foram utilizados 48 dentes bovinos cujas superfícies vestibulares foram desgastadas com lixas de carbeto de silício para exposição e planificação de esmalte (E) e dentina (D). As amostras foram distribuídas em 8 grupos experimentais segundo o substrato dental e o sistema adesivo aplicado (n = 6). Estes foram aplicados de acordo com as instruções dos fabricantes e, com o auxílio de matrizes de silicone Tygon (0,75 mm diâmetro x 1 mm altura), foram confeccionados três cilindros de resina composta (Grandio Flow – Voco) por espécime. As amostras foram submetidas ao ensaio de microcisalhamento em máquina de ensaio universal (4411/Instron, 0,5 mm.min-1) e os dados, analisados por ANOVA (2 fatores) e teste Tukey (p < 0,05). Houve diferença estatística entre os fatores em estudo, sendo que os valores de RU do SB foram superiores (p < 0,05) aos do ADP e FUT. O SM apresentou valores intermediários de RU, sem diferir estatisticamente dos demais grupos (p > 0,05). Em relação aos substratos, o esmalte apresentou maior RU independente do sistema adesivo utilizado. Os resultados sugerem que os adesivos tiveram melhor desempenho em esmalte e o SB foi superior aos autocondicionantes em ambos os substratos.
Palavras-chave
Sistema adesivo, partículas de carga, resistência de união, esmalte, dentina.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the bond strength (BS) of filled adhesive systems to the bovine enamel and dentin using micro-shear testing. Four adhesives were selected being two “etch&rinse” adhesives: Adper Single Bond 2 – 3M ESPE (SB) and Solo bond M – Voco (SM); and 2 self-etching adhesives: Adper Prompt L-Pop - 3M ESPE (ADP) and Futurabond NR/ SD – Voco (FUT). Forty-eight bovine teeth were used and their buccal surfaces were abraded with SiC 600 paper in order to expose and flat the enamel (E) and dentin (D) surfaces. The samples were divided in 8 experimental groups (n = 6), according to dental substrates. The adhesives were applied following manufacturers` instructions and the specimens were prepared using Tygon matrixes. Three resin composite cylinders (0.75 m diameter x 1.0 mm high) (Grandio Flow- Voco) were obtained per enamel on dentin surface and samples stored for 24 hours at 37 °C. The specimens were submitted to micro-shear testing (0.5 mm.min-¹/Instron - 4411) and the data evaluated by 2-two ANOVA and the Tukey test (p < 0.05). There was statistical difference between the factors under study and the BS of SB values were higher than ADP and FUT. The BS values of SM were intermediate, without statistical difference to the other groups. Regarding the substrates, the enamel promoted higher BS, independently of adhesive system used. The results suggest that adhesive systems had higher BS on enamel surface and in general the “etch&rise” systems, specifically SB, showed higher BS in both substrates.
Keywords
Adhesive system, fillers, bond strength, enamel, dentin
References
1. Nakabayashi N. The hybrid layer: a resin-dentin composite. Proc Finn Dent Soc.1992;88(Suppl 1):321-9.
2. Marshall GW, Marshal SJ, Kinney JH, Balooch M. The dentin substrato structure and properties related to bonding. J Dent.1997;25:441-58.
3. Buonocore MG. A simple method of. Incresing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res.1995;34:849-53.
4. Li Y, Swartz ML, Phllips RW, Moore BK. Effect of filler content and size on properties of composites. J Dent Res. 1995;64:1396-401.
5. Nunes MF, Swift EJ, Perdigao J. Effects of adhesive composition on microtensile bond strength to human dentin. Am J Dent. 2001;14:340-3.
6. Nakabayashi N, Kojima K, Masuhara E. The promotion of adhesion by infiltration of monomers into tooth substrates. J Biomed Mater Res. 1982;16:265-73.
7. Swift EJ Jr, Triolo PT Jr, Barkmeier WW, Bird JL, Bounds SJ. Effect of low-viscosity resins on the performance of dental adhesives. Am J Dent. 1996;9:100-4.
8. Tay FR, Moulding MM., Pashley HD. Distribution of. Nanofiller from a simplified-step adhesive in acidconditioned dentin. J Adhes Dent. 1999;2:103-7.
9. Lopes GC, Oliveira GM. Direct composite resin restorations in posterior teeth. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2006;27:572-81.
10. Perdigão J, Baratieri LN, Lopes M.Laboratory evaluation and clinical application of a new one-bottle adhesive. J Esthet Dent. 1999;11:23-35.
11. Perdigão J, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B, Tomé AR, Vanherle G, Lopes AB. Morphological filed emission -SEM stud of. Effect of six phosphoric acid etching agents um human dentin. Dent Mater. 1996;12:262-71.
12. Van Meerbeek B, Yoshida Y, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G, Duke ES, Eick JD, et al. A TEM stud of two water based adhesive systms bonded to dry and wet dentin. J Dent Res. 1998;77:50-9.
13. Watanabe I, Nakabayashi N, Pashley DH. Bonding to group dentin by a phenyl- P silfo etching primer. J Dent Res. 1994;73:1212-20.
14. Shimada Y, Yamaguchi S, Tagami J.Micro-shear bond strength of dual-cured resin cement to glass ceramics. Dent Mater. 2002;18:380-8.
15. Nakabayashi N, Pashley DH. Hybridization of dental hard tissue. Tokyo: Quintessence Publishing; 1998.
16. Kugel G, Ferrari M. The science of bonding: from first to sixth generation. J Am Dent Assoc. 2000;131(Suppl): 20S-25S.
17. Watanabe I, Nakabayashi N. Measurement methods for adhesion to dentine: current status in Japan. J Dent. 1994;22:67-72.
18. Nakamichi I, Iwaku M, Fusayama T. Bovine teeth as possible human teeth substitutes. J Dent Res 1983;62:1076-81.
19. Schilke R, Lisson JA, Bauss O, Geurtsen W. Comparison of the number and diameter of dentinal tubules in human and bovine dentine by scanning electron microscopic investigation. Arch Oral Biol. 2000;45:355-61.
20. Camargo MA, Marques MM, de Cara AA. Morphological analysis of human and bovine dentine by scanning electron microscope investigation. Arch Oral Biol. 2008;53:105-8.
21. Reis AF, Giannini M, Kavaguchi A, Soares CJ, Line SR. Comparison of microtensile bond strength to enamel and dentin of human,bovine and porcine teeth. J Adhes Dent. 2004;6:117-21.
22. Titley KC, Childers S, Kulkarni G. An in vitro comparison of short and long term bond strengths of polyacid modified composite resins to primary human and bovine enamel and dentine. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2006;7:246-52.
23. Krifka S, Börzsönyi A, Koch A, Hiller KA, Schmalz G, Friedl KH. Bond strength of adhesive systems to dentin and enamel-Human vs. bovine primary teeth in vitro. Dent Mater. 2007 Dec 21 [Epub ahead of print].
24. Pashley DH, Tay FR. Aggressiveness of contemporary self-etching adhesives. Part II: etching effects on unground enamel. Dent Mater. 2001;17: 430-44.
25. Tay FR, Pashley DH, Yiu C, Chong C, Hashimoto M, Itou K, et al. Nanoleakage types and potencial implications: Evidence from unfilled and filled adhesive with the same resin composition. Am J Dent. 2004;17:217-23.
26. Reis AF, Oliveira MT, Giannini M, De Goes MF, Rueggeberg FA. The effect of organic solvents on one-bottle adhesives’ bond strength to enamel and dentin.1: Oper Dent. 2003;28:700-6.
27. Kanca J III. Resin bonding to wet substrate. I. Bonding to dentin. Quintessence Int. 1992;23:39-41.
28. Maciel KT, Carvalho RM, Ringle RD, Preston CD, Russell CM, Pashley DH. The effects of acetone, ethanol, HEMA, and air on the stiffness of human decalcified dentin matrix. J Dent Res. 1996;75:1851-8.
29. Gallo JR, Burgess JO, Xu X. Effect of delayed application on shear bond strength of four fifth-generation bonding systems. Oper Dent. 2001;26 48-51.
30. Ogata M, Nakajima M, Sano H, Tagami J. Effect of dentin primer application on regional bond strength to cervical wedge-shaped cavity walls. Oper Dent. 1999;24:81-8.
31. Van Landuyt KL, Snauwaert J, Munck J, Peumans M, Yoshida Y,Poitevin A, et al. Systematic review of the chemical composition of contemporary dental adhesives. Biomaterials. 2007;28:3757-85
32. Ishikawa A, Shimada Y, Foxton RM, Tagami J. Microtensile and micro-shear bond strengths of current self-etch adhesives to enamel and dentin. Am J Dent. 2007;20:161-6.
33. Pashley DH, Sano H, Ciucchi B, Yoshiyama M, Carvalho RM. Adhesion testing of dentin bonding agents: a review. Dent Mater. 1995;11:117-25.
34. Placido E, Meira JB, Lima RG, Muench A, de Souza RM, Ballester RY. Shear versus micro-shear bond strength test: a finite element stress analysis. Dent Mater. 2007;23:1086-92.
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
StumbleUpon
CiteULike
Reddit
Email