The effect of saliva decontamination procedures on dentin bond strength after universal adhesive curing

Effect of contamination and decontamination methods on the bond strength of adhesive systems to dentin: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

In a suitable condition, it is important to perform any dental restorative procedure using an operatory field isolated. Then, the aim of this study was to compare the bond strength of composite restorations to dentin affected by any contamination agent through a systematic review.

METHODS

This systematic review was performed following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The literature search was conducted until September 2022 by scanning the following databases: Embase, PubMed, Scielo, Scopus, and Web of Science. Manuscripts evaluated the bond strength of resin-based materials to permanent human dentin contaminated with blood or saliva were selected for full-text review. The risk of bias was assessed by the RoBDEMAT tool.

RESULTS

A total of 3750 papers resulted from the search from all databases. After the full-text reading, a total of 62 articles remained for the qualitative analysis. The contamination agents used were blood, saliva, and hemostatic agents. A great variety of protocols were used to contaminate the dentin surface, and the contamination process occurred in several steps of the bonding process, including before and after the etching process, after the primer application and after the adhesive application. Also, several decontamination procedures were tested, including reapplication of the etching material, rinsing with water, chlorhexidine or sodium hypochlorite and reapplication of the adhesive system.

CONCLUSION

Any contamination with blood or saliva impaired the bond strength of resin-based materials to dentin. Decontamination procedures including water-spray and reapplication of the bonding system could revert the impairment produced by the saliva or blood contamination. The use of hemostatic agents as a method of blood decontamination is not recommended.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Clinicians should avoid contamination during a bonding procedure, otherwise, a reduction in the bond quality is expected.

Universal adhesive application to contaminated/non-contaminated dentin with three different protocols: An in vitro shear bond strength and SEM analysis

This study aimed to comparatively evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of a universal adhesive to contaminated/non-contaminated dentin when applied with three different protocols. One-hundred-eighty dentin samples were divided randomly into 12 groups (n=15). The groups were created by combining four dentin contamination conditions (non-contaminated or contaminated with blood, hemostatic, or blood+hemostatic) with three application protocols for Single Bond Universal (no-preconditioning or preconditioning with the 35% phosphoric or 1% gallic acid). Following thermal cycling, the SBS test was performed. Data were analyzed using two-way-ANOVA and Tukey's HSD (p<0.05). Dentin surfaces subjected to phosphoric acid, gallic acid, or hemostatic were examined using scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis. SBS results were influenced by both the dentin contamination (p<0.001) and application protocol (p<0.001). A significant interaction was found between the two factors (p=0.005). The highest bonding performance to contaminated dentin -at all contamination conditions- was achieved with the gallic acid preconditioning.

Shear Bond Strength of Metal Brackets to Porcelain Using a Universal Adhesive

Introduction:

Bracket bonding to porcelain has high failure rate compared to bonding to enamel.

Aim:

This study aimed to assess the shear bond strength (SBS) of metal brackets to porcelain using a universal adhesive.

Material and Methods:

In this in vitro experimental study, 40 porcelain blocks (1x1x1 cm³)were divided into four groups (n=10). The porcelain surfaces were etched with 10% hydrofluoric (HF) acid and bonded to metal brackets using Transbond XT composite and the following bonding protocols: Transbond XT bonding agent alone in group 1, silane plus Transbond XT bonding agent in group 2, silane plus universal adhesive (G-Premio bond) in group 3 and universal adhesive alone in group 4. The SBS was measured using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/minute. Fracture surfaces were evaluated under a stereo microscope, and the adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores were determined.

Results:

The highest and the lowest SBS values were noted in groups 3 (17.06±2.58 MPa) and 4 (9.85±4.76 MPa), respectively. Type of adhesive had no significant effect on SBS (P=0.611). However, the effect of application of silane on SBS was significant (P=0.000). Groups subjected to the application of silane showed higher SBS values than others. The mode of failure was mainly adhesive in groups 2 and 3, and adhesive and mixed in groups 1 and 4. The difference in ARI scores was statistically significant (P=0.016).

Conclusion:

Universal adhesive and Transbond XT were not significantly different in SBS. However, application of silane significantly increased the bond strength.

Bioactive glass ceramic can improve the bond strength of sealant/enamel?

AIM

Evaluate the influence of enamel pre-treatment using Biosilicate, associated or not to other treatments; on the bond strength (BS) of pit-and-fissure sealant, with or without saliva contamination.

METHODS

Ninety slices (4 mm × 4 mm) were obtained from 30 bovine incisors. Each slice was embedded in acrylic resin with their buccal surface exposed and polished to obtain a flat enamel surface. Half of them were contaminated with human saliva. All specimens were randomly divided into five groups (n = 9) according to the surface pre-treatment tested: acid etching (AE); AE + Biosilicate (B); AE + B + total-etch adhesive (Ad); Biosilicate; control (no treatment). Then, a 1 mm layer of sealant (Clinpro XT Varnish, 3M ESPE) was applied; and to provide support, a composite resin (Opallis, FGM) block was built up over it. Samples were thermocycled (500 cycles/5-55 °C) and sectioned obtaining sticks (1 × 1 × 10 mm) for microtensile BS testing (0.5 mm/min). Data were analysed with two-way ANOVA, Bonferroni test, p < 0.05. Failure patterns were evaluated using a stereomicroscope.

RESULTS

There was no difference among contaminated and non-contaminated groups, and between non-contaminated groups (p > 0.05). When contaminated, AE + B + Ad Group showed the highest BS values, differing (p < 0.05) from B Group and Control; similar between them (p > 0.05). Cohesive fractures were found in AE + B + Ad Group, submitted or not to contamination.

CONCLUSIONS

Since a surface pre-treatment was used, whether Biosilicate was applied or not, the sealant/enamel BS was the same in saliva-contaminated or non-contaminated enamel.

Universal dental adhesives: Current status, laboratory testing, and clinical performance

Increasing demand for simplified and user-friendly adhesive systems has led to the development of a new class of adhesives termed as Universal Adhesives (UAs). The term "Universal" reflects manufacturers' claims that these adhesives can be applied with any adhesion strategy and offer the versatility of use with a variety of direct and indirect restorative materials. The aim of this review was to synthesize the literature regarding the current status of UAs, their adhesion potential to various substrates and their performance in different restorative situations. In vitro studies, clinical trials and systematic reviews were identified utilizing controlled vocabulary and keyword searches in Medline and EMBASE databases. About 282 studies (272 in vitro studies; 11 clinical studies) were included. Available laboratory and clinical evidence does not support the claim that UAs can be used with any adhesive strategy. Although, they can chemically bond to various tooth and direct/indirect restorative substrates, the stability of this bond is material-dependent and subject to hydrolytic degradation. Hence, additional measures are still needed to ensure long-term durability. which undermines the versatility of UAs. The lack of long-term data regarding the clinical performance of UAs further complicates clinical decision-making. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater 107B: 2121-2131, 2019.

Polymeric materials and films in dentistry: An overview

The use of polymeric materials (PMs) and polymeric films (PMFs) has increased in medicine and dentistry. This increasing interest is attributed to not only the excellent surfaces of PMs and PMFs but also their desired mechanical and biological properties, low production cost, and ease in processing, allowing them to be tailored for a wide range of applications. Specifically, PMs and PMFs are used in dentistry for their antimicrobial, drug delivery properties; in preventive, restorative and regenerative therapies; and for corrosion and friction reduction. PMFs such as acrylic acid copolymers are used as a dental adhesive; polylactic acids are used for dental pulp and dentin regeneration, and bioactive polymers are used as advanced drug delivery systems. The objective of this article was to review the literatures on the latest advancements in the use of PMs and PMFs in medicine and dentistry. Published literature (1990–2017) on PMs and PMFs for use in medicine and dentistry was reviewed using MEDLINE/PubMed and ScienceDirect resources. Furthermore, this review also explores the diversity of latest PMs and PMFs that have been utilized in dental applications, and analyzes the benefits and limitations of PMs and PMFs. Most of the PMs and PMFs have shown to improve the biomechanical properties of dental materials, but in future, more clinical studies are needed to create better treatment guidelines for patients.

Cytotoxicity of Light-Cured Dental Materials according to Different Sample Preparation Methods

Dental light-cured resins can undergo different degrees of polymerization when applied in vivo. When polymerization is incomplete, toxic monomers may be released into the oral cavity. The present study assessed the cytotoxicity of different materials, using sample preparation methods that mirror clinical conditions. Composite and bonding resins were used and divided into four groups according to sample preparation method: uncured; directly cured samples, which were cured after being placed on solidified agar; post-cured samples were polymerized before being placed on agar; and “removed unreacted layer” samples had their oxygen-inhibition layer removed after polymerization. Cytotoxicity was evaluated using an agar diffusion test, MTT assay, and confocal microscopy. Uncured samples were the most cytotoxic, while removed unreacted layer samples were the least cytotoxic (p < 0.05). In the MTT assay, cell viability increased significantly in every group as the concentration of the extracts decreased (p < 0.05). Extracts from post-cured and removed unreacted layer samples of bonding resin were less toxic than post-cured and removed unreacted layer samples of composite resin. Removal of the oxygen-inhibition layer resulted in the lowest cytotoxicity. Clinicians should remove unreacted monomers on the resin surface immediately after restoring teeth with light-curing resin to improve the restoration biocompatibility.