Immediate dentin sealing supports delayed restoration placement.
BACKGROUND
Immediate dentin sealing (IDS) is a new approach in indirect restorations. Dentin is sealed immediately following tooth preparation, prior to impression making. It is not known whether it is still possible to obtain an efficient bond between the resin-coated dentin and the restoration after 2 to 4 months of placement of provisional restorations.


OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to determine if there were differences in microtensile bond strength to human dentin using the IDS technique when comparing 2, 7, and 12 weeks of delay until restoration placement, using 2 different dentin bonding agents (DBAs). Previously published preliminary IDS data were included for comparison.


METHODS
Fifty freshly extracted human molars were obtained and divided into 10 groups. A 3-step etch-and-rinse DBA (Optibond FL) and a 2-step self-etching DBA (SE Bond) were used. For each DBA, the control (C) specimens were prepared using a direct immediate bonding technique and composite restoration (Z100). Preparation of the other specimens used an indirect approach without dentin prebonding (delayed dentin sealing, DDS) or with immediate dentin sealing (IDS), immediately following preparation. IDS teeth had provisional restorations (Tempfil inlay) placed for 2 weeks (IDS-2W), 7 weeks (IDS-7W), or 12 weeks (IDS-12W) before restoration placement. All teeth were prepared for a nontrimming microtensile bond strength test (MTBS) 24 hours after definitive restoration with composite overlays (Z100). Ten to 11 beams (0.9 x 0.9 x 11 mm) from each tooth were selected for testing. MTBS data obtained from the 10 experimental groups were analyzed with a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA, dentin bonding system, and sequence of application) with each tooth (mean MTBS from the 10-11 beams) used as a single measurement. The Tukey HSD post hoc test was used to detect pairwise differences among experimental groups (alpha=.05). Fractured beams were also analyzed under stereoscopic microscope (x 30) and SEM.


RESULTS
For both adhesives, the mean microtensile bond strengths of C and all IDS groups were not significantly different and exceeded 45 MPa. DDS groups exhibited lower bond strength than all others sequences (P<.001) with SE Bond at 1.81 MPa significantly lower (P=.026) than Optibond FL at 11.58 MPa. The highest mean microtensile bond strength values were found with Optibond FL at 7 weeks (66.59 MPa) and 12 weeks (59.11 MPa). These were significantly higher than SE Bond in the same conditions with values of 51.96 MPa and 45.76 MPa (P=.001 and P=.003), respectively. Failures in DDS groups were all interfacial and purely adhesive. Both C and IDS-2W groups demonstrated interfacial failure that was typically mixed with both areas of failed adhesive resin and areas of cohesively failed dentin while IDS-7W and IDS-12W failed consistently between the existing resin coating (used during IDS) and the overlaying composite resin.


CONCLUSIONS
When preparing teeth for indirect bonded restorations, IDS with a 3-step etch-rinse or a 2-step self-etching DBA (prior to impression making) results in microtensile bond strength similar to that obtained with a freshly placed adhesive. The bond strength is not affected by up to 12 weeks of elapsed time prior to placement of the definitive restoration.
Magne
Pascal
P
Division of Primary Oral Health Care, University of Southern California, School of Dentistry, Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA. magne@usc.edu
So
Woong-Seup
WS
Cascione
Domenico
D
D000268:Adhesiveness; D003442:Crowns; D001840:Dental Bonding / Q000379:methods*; D003794:Dental Restoration, Temporary; D003799:Dental Stress Analysis; D003804:Dentin; D003806:Dentin Permeability; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents; D006801:Humans; D007284:Inlays; D008963:Molar; D019279:Resin Cements; D013499:Surface Properties; D013718:Tensile Strength; D013997:Time Factors
C438313:Clearfil SE Bond; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents; C469607:OptiBond FL; D019279:Resin Cements