Influence of Erosive and Abrasive Cycling on Bonding of Different Adhesive Systems to Enamel: An In situ Study.

Marina Ciccone Giacomini,Linda Wang,Camila Moreira Machado,Leslie Caroll Casas-Apayco,Maria Cristina Carvalho De Almendra Freitas,Maria Teresa Atta

doi:10.1590/0103-6440201600940

Abstract

This study evaluated the impact of orange juice on the bond strength (BS) of dentin bonding systems (DBSs) to enamel surface after simulation with an in situ/ ex vivo erosive cycling. One hundred and ninety two bovine enamel fragments (4x4x2mm) were obtained and randomized regarding superficial microhardness and distributed to palatal devices for 8 volunteers, in three phases (one for each DBS), containing 8 blocks, which were, allocated in 4 pairs. Daily, these pairs were subjected extraorally to the following conditions: CONT- neither erosive nor abrasive challenge; ERO- erosive challenge only; ABR- abrasive challenge only and ERO + ABR- with erosive and abrasive challenges. Erosive cycles (immersion in orange juice, 3 times/day/5 min/5 days) or/and abrasive challenges (electric toothbrush, 3 times/day/1 min/5 days) were performed. After these cycles, all specimens were restored with the adhesive systems Adper Scotchbond Multi Purpose (MP), Adper Single Bond 2 (SB) or Clearfil SE Bond (SE), and the composite resin Filtek Z250. After 7 days, sticks (area ≅1 mm2) were obtained and subjected to the microtensile bond strength test (μTBS) at 0.5 mm/min. Data was statistically analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey tests (a=0.05). Failure modes were determined using a digital microscope (40´). DBS was the only statistical significant factor. SE was the unique DBS not affected in any challenge, whereas MP and SB performed according to the scenario. The adhesive and mixed failures were predominant in all groups. Overall performance suggested that BS to enamel after erosive /abrasive challenged by orange juice was not affected and it was material-dependent.

Highlights

The increased prevalence of erosion that affects dental hard tissues has stimulated the development of strategies and agents to prevent or control its effect [1]
A= adhesive, M=mixed, CE=cohesive in enamel, CR= cohesive in resin. As this investigation was partially performed intraorally, it was necessary to sterilize the specimens before their application
As enamel compound is mostly based on inorganic matrix, there is no evidence of alterations using formaldehyde, in terms of bonding effect

Summary

Introduction

The increased prevalence of erosion that affects dental hard tissues has stimulated the development of strategies and agents to prevent or control its effect [1]. Erosion is primarily the result of the non-bacterial chemical attack usually involving acidic substances by intrinsic or extrinsic etiologies, which provokes the loss of dental hard tissue [2]. In the beginning, it causes the softening of the surface [3] and its progression turns it more vulnerable to mechanical processes, and dental subsequent wear if not stopped [1,2,3,4]. Its erosive potential is determined by several factors, including its pH and triattibility, chelating properties, and calcium, phosphate and fluoride concentration, frequency of exposure and duration of each episode of erosive exposure [5,7]

Objectives

Methods

Findings

Conclusion