Effects of Polyacrylic Acid Pre-Treatment on Bonded-Dentine Interfaces Created with a Modern Bioactive Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement and Subjected to Cycling Mechanical Stress.

Abstract

Objectives: Resin-modified glass ionomer cements (RMGIC) are considered excellent restorative materials with unique therapeutic and anti-cariogenic activity. However, concerns exist regarding the use of polyacrylic acid as a dentine conditioner as it may influence the bonding performance of RMGIC. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different protocols for cycling mechanical stress on the bond durability and interfacial ultramorphology of a modern RMGIC applied to dentine pre-treated with/without polyacrylic acid conditioner (PAA). Methods: The RMGIC was applied onto human dentine specimens prepared with silicon-carbide (SiC) abrasive paper with or without the use of a PAA conditioner. The specimens were immersed in deionised water for 24 h then divided in 3 groups. The first group was cut into matchsticks (cross-sectional area of 0.9 mm2) and tested immediately for microtensile bond strength (MTBS). The second was first subjected to load cycling (250,000 cycles; 3 Hz; 70 N) and then cut into matchsticks and tested for MTBS. The third group was subjected to load cycling (250,000 cycles; 3 Hz; 70 N), cut into matchsticks, and then immersed for 8 months storage in artificial saliva (AS); these were finally tested for MTBS. The results were analysed statistically using two-way ANOVA and the Student–Newman–Keuls test (α = 0.05). Fractographic analysis was performed using FE-SEM, while further RMCGIC-bonded dentine specimens were aged as previously described and used for interfacial ultramorphology characterisation (dye nanoleakage) using confocal microscopy. Results: The RMGIC applied onto dentine that received no pre-treatment (10% PAA gel) showed no significant reduction in MTBS after load cycling followed by 8 months of storage in AS (p > 0.05). The RMGIC–dentine interface created in PAA-conditioned SiC-abraded dentine specimens showed no sign of degradation, but with porosities within the bonding interface both after load cycling and after 8 months of storage in AS. Conversely, the RMGIC–dentine interface of the specimens with no PAA pre-treatment showed no sign of porosity within the interface after any of the aging protocols, although some bonded-dentine interfaces presented cohesive cracks within the cement after prolonged AS storage. However, the specimens of this group showed no significant reduction in bond strength (p < 0.05) after 8 months of storage in AS or load cycling (p > 0.05). After prolonged AS storage, the bond strength value attained in RMGIC–dentine specimens created in PAA pre-treated dentine were significantly higher than those observed in the specimens created with no PAA pre-treatment in dentine. Conclusions: PAA conditioning of dentine prior to application of RMGIC induces no substantial effect on the bond strength after short-term storage, but its use may increase the risk of collagen degradation at the bonding interface after prolonged aging. Modern RMGIC applied without PAA dentine pre-treatment may have greater therapeutic synergy with saliva during cycle occlusal load, thereby enhancing the remineralisation and protection of the bonding interface.