Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the adhesive strength of a hydrophilic composite submitted to contamination and pH cycling, compared to a conventional composite. Materials and Methods: Seventy-two bovine incisors were prepared and randomly divided into 6 groups (n=12), bonded with Hydrophilic Composite (HC)(Transbond Plus Color Change) or with Conventional Composite (CC)(Transbond XT; control), with or without contamination and pH cycling as follows: G1-HC, with contamination, with pH cycling; G2-HC, with contamination, without pH cycling; G3-HC, without contamination, with pH cycling; G4-HC, without contamination, without pH cycling; G5-CC, without contamination, with pH cycling; G6-CC, without contamination, without pH cycling. Contamination in G1 and G2 consisted of fresh saliva applied after the self-etching primer for 5min before bonding with HC. After bonding, G1, G3, and G5 were submitted to pH cycling, immersed in the demineralizing solution for 22h and for 2h in remineralizing artificial saliva, repeated for 15 days. G2, G4, and G6 were kept in deionized water. The shear bond strength was tested using a load cell of 100N and the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) was assessed. Intergroup comparison was performed with one-way ANOVA, Tukey, and chi-square tests. Results: There was a statistically significant difference in G1, G2, and G3 in relation to G6. The highest rate of adhesive failure between the resin/bracket interface occurred with the HC, while CC failed more at the resin/tooth interface. Conclusion: Contamination and pH cycling did not decrease the shear bond strength of brackets bonded with the hydrophilic composite. However, the adhesive strength of the conventional composite was higher.
Highlights
AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEMDuring orthodontic treatment, bonding of accessories to teeth enamel is usually necessary, interfering in the proper hygiene, retaining biofilm, and increasing the risk of developing dental caries [1]
The highest rate of adhesive failure between the resin/bracket interface occurred with the Hydrophilic Composite (HC), while Conventional Composite (CC) failed more at the resin/tooth interface
Contamination and pH cycling did not decrease the shear bond strength of brackets bonded with the hydrophilic composite
Summary
AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEMDuring orthodontic treatment, bonding of accessories to teeth enamel is usually necessary, interfering in the proper hygiene, retaining biofilm, and increasing the risk of developing dental caries [1]. Hydrophilic composites are used to produce proper adhesion, even in the presence of moisture and contamination [7, 8]. These adhesives have acetone or ethanol as solvents that can move and diffuse through the biofilm to reach hydroxyapatite and promote adequate adhesion after polymerization. Studies have shown that the adhesion of the hydrophilic resin Transbond Plus Color Change, in the presence of contamination, is superior to that of the conventional Transbond XT resin [7], while others have not found this difference [9]. The preventive potential for white spots of this material was little studied so far and has shown satisfactory results in vitro and in vivo [11, 12]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
