Bond strength of a pit-and-fissure sealant associated to etch-and-rinse and self-etching adhesive systems to saliva-contaminated enamel: individual vs. simultaneous light curing.
This study evaluated in vitro the shear bond strength (SBS) of a resin-based pit-and-fissure sealant [Fluroshield (F), Dentsply/Caulk] associated with either an etch-and-rinse [Adper Single Bond 2 (SB), 3M/ESPE] or a self-etching adhesive system [Clearfil S3 Bond (S3), Kuraray Co., Ltd.] to saliva-contaminated enamel, comparing two curing protocols: individual light curing of the adhesive system and the sealant or simultaneous curing of both materials. Mesial and distal enamel surfaces from 45 sound third molars were randomly assigned to 6 groups (n=15), according to the bonding technique: I - F was applied to 37% phosphoric acid etched enamel. The other groups were contaminated with fresh human saliva (0.01 mL; 10 s) after acid etching: II - SB and F were light cured separately; III - SB and F were light cured together; IV - S3 and F were light cured separately; V - S3 and F were light cured simultaneously; VI - F was applied to saliva-contaminated, acid-etched enamel without an intermediate bonding agent layer. SBS was tested to failure in a universal testing machine at 0.5 mm/min. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Fisher's test (alpha=0.05).The debonded specimens were examined with a stereomicroscope to assess the failure modes. Three representative specimens from each group were observed under scanning electron microscopy for a qualitative analysis. Mean SBS in MPa were: I-12.28 (+/-4.29); II-8.57 (+/-3.19); III-7.97 (+/-2.16); IV-12.56 (+/-3.11); V-11.45 (+/-3.77); and VI-7.47 (+/-1.99). In conclusion, individual or simultaneous curing of the intermediate bonding agent layer and the resin sealant did not seem to affect bond strength to saliva-contaminated enamel. S3/F presented significantly higher SBS than the that of the groups treated with SB etch-and-rinse adhesive system and similar SBS to that of the control group, in which the sealant was applied under ideal dry, noncontaminated conditions.
Gomes-Silva
Jaciara Miranda
JM
Department of Pediatric Clinic, Preventive and Community Dentistry, Dental School of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.
Torres
Carolina Paes
CP
Contente
Marta Maria Martins Giamatei
MM
Oliveira
Maria Angélica Hueb de Menezes
MA
Palma-Dibb
Regina Guenka
RG
Borsatto
Maria Cristina
MC
D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate; D003743:Dental Enamel; D045662:Dental Etching / Q000379:methods*; D044622:Dental Pellicle; D019232:Dental Restoration Failure; D003799:Dental Stress Analysis; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents; D006801:Humans; D055115:Light-Curing of Dental Adhesives / Q000379:methods*; D008422:Materials Testing; D008963:Molar; D010895:Pit and Fissure Sealants; D011140:Polyurethanes; D019279:Resin Cements; D012463:Saliva; D033081:Shear Strength; D013997:Time Factors
D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents; D010895:Pit and Fissure Sealants; D011140:Polyurethanes; D019279:Resin Cements; C086661:Fluoroshield; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate