Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T19:19:49.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bond Strength of High-Viscosity Glass Ionomer Cements is Affected by Tubular Density and Location in Dentin?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 July 2015

Tamara K. Tedesco ,
Ana Flávia B. Calvo ,
Gabrielle G. Domingues ,
Fausto M. Mendes  and
Daniela P. Raggio
Tamara K. Tedesco
Affiliation:
Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo 05508-000, Brazil
Ana Flávia B. Calvo
Affiliation:
Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo 05508-000, Brazil
Gabrielle G. Domingues
Affiliation:
Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo 05508-000, Brazil
Fausto M. Mendes
Affiliation:
Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo 05508-000, Brazil
Daniela P. Raggio*
Affiliation:
Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo 05508-000, Brazil
*
*Corresponding author. [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This study evaluated the influence of tubular density of different dentin depths and location on the bond strength of high-viscosity glass ionomer cements (GIC). A total of 20 molars were selected and assigned into six experimental groups, considering two different high-viscosity GICs—Fuji IX (FIX) or Ketac Molar (KM), and dentin location—proximal, occlusal superficial, or occlusal deep dentin (n=10). Teeth were cut and a topographical analysis of four sections per group was performed to obtain data about the tubular density of each different dentin location and depths by laser scanning confocal microscopy (100×). Polyethylene tubes were placed over the pretreated surfaces and filled with one of the GICs. Microshear bond strength (µSBS) test was performed after storage in distilled water (24 h at 37°C). Failure modes were evaluated using a stereomicroscope (400×). Multilevel regression analysis was performed to compare the results at a significance level set at 5%. The tubule density was inversely proportional to the bond strength for both GICs (p<0.05). Adhesive/mixed failure prevailed in all experimental groups. Proximal (30036.5±3433.3) and occlusal superficial 29665.3±1434.04 dentin shows lower tubule density, resulting in a better GIC bonding performance (proximal: FIX–3.61±1.05; KM–3.40±1.62; occlusal superficial: FIX–4.70±1.85; KM–4.97±1.25). Thus, we can concluded that the lowest tubule density in proximal and occlusal superficial dentin results in a better GIC bond strength performance.

Keywords

glass ionomer cementsbond strengthdentinconfocal microscopypermanent tooth
Type
Biological Applications and Techniques
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , August 2015 , pp. 849 - 854
Copyright
© Microscopy Society of America 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adebayo, O.A., Burrow, M.F. & Tyas, M.J. (2008). Bonding of one-step and two-step self-etching primer adhesives to dentin with different tubule orientation. Acta Odontol Scand 66, 159–168.Google Scholar
Akagawa, H., Nikaido, T., Takada, T., Burrow, M.F. & Tagami, J. (2002). Shear bond strengths to coronal and pulp chamber floor dentin. Am J Dent 15, 383–388.Google ScholarPubMed
Bonifácio, C.C., Shimaoka, A.M., de Andrade, A.P., Raggio, D.P., van Amerongen, W.E. & de Carvalho, R.C. (2012). Micro-mechanical bond strength tests for the assessment of the adhesion of GIC to dentine. Acta Odontol Scand 70, 555–563.Google Scholar
Brackett, W.W., Covey, D.A. & Germain, H.A. Jr. (2002). One-year clinical performance of a self-etching adhesive in class V resin composites cured by two months. Oper Dent 27, 218–222.Google Scholar
Burrow, M.F., Takakura, H., Nakajima, M., Inai, N., Tagami, J. & Takatsu, T. (1994). The influence of age and depth of dentin on bonding. Dent Mater 10, 241–246.Google Scholar
Cagidiaco, M.C., Ferrari, M., Vichi, A. & Davidson, C.L. (1997). Mapping of tubule and intertubule surface áreas available for bonding in class V and class II preparations. J Dent 25, 379–389.Google Scholar
Carrigan, P.J., Morse, D.R., Furst, M.L. & Sinai, I.H. (1984). A scanning electron microscopic evaluation of human dentin tubules according to age and location. J Endod 10, 359–363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cehreli, Z.C. & Akça, T. (2003). Effect of dentin tubule orientation on the microtensile bond strength to primary dentin. J Dent Child 70, 139–144.Google Scholar
Cruz, J.B., Lenzi, T.L., Tedesco, T.K., Guglielmi, C.A.B. & Raggio, D.P. (2012). Eroded dentin does not jeopardize the bond strength of adhesive restorative materials. Braz Oral Res 26, 306–312.Google Scholar
Garcia, E.J., Gomes, O.M. & Gomes, J.C. (2009). In vitro analysis of bond strength of self-etching adhesive applied on superficial and deep dentin. Acta Odontol Latinoam 22, 57–62.Google Scholar
Giannini, M., Carvalho, R.M., Martins, L.R., Dias, C.T. & Pashley, D.H. (2001). The influence of tubule density and area of solid dentin on bond strength of two adhesive systems to dentin. J Adhes Dent 3, 315–324.Google Scholar
Gjorgievska, E.D., Nicholson, J.W., Apostolska, S.M., Coleman, N.J., Booth, S.E., Splipper, I.J. & Mladenov, M.I. (2013). Interfacial properties of three different bioactive dentine substitutes. Microsc Microanal 19, 1450–1457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goracci, G. & Mori, G. (1995). Micromorphological aspects of dentin. Minerva Stomatol 44, 377–387.Google Scholar
Hannigan, A. & Lynch, C.D. (2013). Statistical methodology in oral and dental research: Pitfalls and recommendations. J Dent 41, 385–392.Google Scholar
Hebling, J., Castro, F.L. & Costa, C.A. (2007). Adhesive performance of dentin bonding agentes applied in vivo and in vitro. Effect of intrapulpal pressure and dentin depth. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 83, 295–303.Google Scholar
Jayaprakash, T., Srinivasan, M.R. & Indira, R. (2010). Evaluation of the effect of surface moisture on dentin tensile bond strength to dentine adhesive: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 13, 116–118.Google Scholar
Kugel, G. & Ferrari, M. (2000). The science of bonding: From first to sixth generation. J Am Dent Assoc 131, 20–25.Google Scholar
Lenzi, T.L., Guglielmi, C.A.B., Arana-Chavez, V.E. & Raggio, D.P. (2013). Tubule density and diameter in coronal dentin from primary and permanent human teeth. Microsc Microanal 19, 1445–1449.Google Scholar
Lopes, M.B., Sinhoreti, M.A., Gonini Júnior, A., Consani, S. & McCabe, J.F. (2009). Comparative study of tubular diameter and quantity for human and bovine dentin at different depths. Braz Dent J 20, 279–283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marshall, G.W. Jr., Marshall, S.J., Kinney, J.H. & Balooch, M. (1997). The dentin substrate: Structure and properties to bonding. J Dent 25, 441–458.Google Scholar
McCabe, J.F. & Rusby, S. (1992). Dentine bonding agents—Characteristic bond strength as a function of dentine depth. J Dent 20, 225–230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olegário, I.C., Malagrana, A.P.V.F.P., Kim, S.S.H., Hesse, D., Tedesco, T.K., Calvo, A.F.B., Camargo, L.B. & Raggio, D.P. (2015). Mechanical Properties of High-Viscosity Glass Ionomer Cement and Nanoparticle Glass Carbomer. J Nanomater 2015, ID 472401, 4 pages.Google Scholar
Pashley, D.H., Sano, H., Ciucchi, B., Yoshiyama, M. & Carvalho, R.M. (1995). Adhesion testing of dentin bonding agents: A review. Dent Mater 11, 117–125.Google Scholar
Perdigão, J., Carmo, A.R., Geraldeli, S., Dutra, H.R. & Masuda, M.S. (2001). Six-month clinical evaluation of two dentin adhesives applied on dry vs moist dentin. J Adhes Dent 3, 343–352.Google Scholar
Phrukkanon, S., Burrow, M.F. & Tyas, M.J. (1999). The effect of dentine location and tubule orientation on the bond strengths between resin and dentine. J Dent 27, 265–274.Google Scholar
Rüttermann, S., Braun, S. & Janda, R. (2013). Shear bond strength and fracture analysis of human vs. bovine teeth. PLoS One 8, e59181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sattabanasuk, V., Shimada, Y. & Tagami, J. (2004). The bond of resin to diferente dentin surface characteristics. Oper Dent 29, 333–341.Google Scholar
Schiltz-Taing, M., Wang, Y., Suh, B., Brown, D. & Chen, L. (2011). Effect of tubular orientation on the dentin bond strength of acidic self-etch adhesives. Oper Dent 36, 86–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schupbach, P., Krejci, I. & Lutz, F. (2007). Dentin bonding: Effect of tubular orientation on hybrid layer formation. Eur J Oral Sci 105, 344–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shilke, R., Lisson, J.A., Bauss, O. & Geurtsen, W. (2000). Comparison of the number and diameter of dentin tubules in human and bovine dentine by scanning electron microscopic investigation. Arch Oral Biol 45, 355–361.Google Scholar
Tagami, J., Tao, L. & Pashley, D.H. (1990). Correlation among dentin depth, permeability, and bond strength of adhesive resins. Dent Mater 6, 45–50.Google Scholar
Tao, L. & Pashley, D.H. (1988). Shear bond strength to dentine: Effects of surface treatments, depth and position. Dent Mater 4, 371–378.Google Scholar
Tedesco, T.K., Bonifácio, C.C., Hesse, D., Kleverlaan, C.J., Lenzi, T.L. & Raggio, D.P. (2014). Bonding longevity of flowable GIC layer in artificially carious dentin. Int J Adhes Adhes 51, 62–66.Google Scholar
Villela-Rosa, A.C., Gonçalves, M., Orsi, I.A. & Miani, P.K. (2011). Shear bond strength of self-etch bonding systems at different dentin depths. Braz Oral Res 25, 109–115.Google Scholar
Watanabe, L.G., Grayson, W., Marshall, G.W. Jr. & Marshall, S.J. (1996). Dentin shear strength: Effects of tubule orientation and intratooth location. Dent Mater 12, 109–115.Google Scholar
Yoshikawa, T., Sano, H., Burrow, M.F., Tagami, J. & Pashley, D.H. (1999). Effects of dentin depth and cavity configuration on bond strength. J Dent Res 78, 898–905.Google Scholar