In vitro μTBS of one-bottle adhesive systems: Sound versus artificially-created caries-affected dentin

This in vitro study aimed to evaluate a pH‐cycling model for simulation of caries‐affected dentin (CAD) surfaces, by comparing the bond strength of etch‐and‐rinse adhesive systems on sound and artificially‐created CAD. Dentin substrates with different mineral contents and morphological patterns were...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials Applied biomaterials, 2008-07, Vol.86B (1), p.181-187
Main Authors: Erhardt, Maria Carolina G., Rodrigues, José Augusto, Valentino, Thiago Assunção, Ritter, André Vicente, Pimenta, Luiz André Freire
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
bond strength
caries-affected dentin
etch-and-rinse
microtensile
pH cycling
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This in vitro study aimed to evaluate a pH‐cycling model for simulation of caries‐affected dentin (CAD) surfaces, by comparing the bond strength of etch‐and‐rinse adhesive systems on sound and artificially‐created CAD. Dentin substrates with different mineral contents and morphological patterns were created by submitting buccal bovine dentin to the following treatments: (1) immersion in artificial saliva during the experimental period (sound dentin, SD), or (2) induction to a CAD condition by means of a dynamic pH‐cycling model (8 cycles, demineralization for 3 h followed by mineralization for 45 h). The bond strength of Excite or Prime and Bond NT adhesive systems was assessed using the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) test. Dentin microhardness was determined by cross‐sectional Knoop evaluations. Resin–dentin morphology after the treatments was examined by scanning electron microscopy. SD produced significantly higher μTBS than CAD for both adhesives evaluated, without differences between materials. CAD exhibited lower microhardness than SD. Morphological analysis showed marked distinctions between SD and CAD bonded interfaces. Under the conditions of this study, differences in morphological pattern and dentin mineral content may help to explain resin–dentin bond strengths. The proposed pH‐cycling model may be a suitable method to simulate CAD surfaces for bonding evaluations. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 2008
ISSN:1552-4973
1552-4981
DOI:10.1002/jbm.b.31004