RESUMO
The most used etchant in dental daily practice is the phosphoric acid (P.A.; 37%). However, acid etchants can induce necrosis on the oral mucosa and cause the ulceration of periodontal tissue when a rubber dam is not used. V-prep is a new practical alternative, and it has satisfactory results. It is used as a preparation before the application of a resin-modified glass ionomer composite (RMGIC) to bond the orthodontic brackets. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of the V-prep on oral gingival fibroblasts cells by comparing the cell damage and cell viability after the use of V-prep and a conventional phosphoric acid etchant with different application times and concentrations. Therefore, Gingival fibroblasts passage 6 (GFP6) was grown and treated with an acid etchant and V-prep at three different concentrations (1:1, 1:2 and 1:10) for two different application durations (30 s and 1 min). The morphological changes, cell death and cell viability were assessed. Pyknosis, karyolysis, nucleus reversible and irreversible damages and membrane destruction were observed for both of the etchants at the higher concentrations and longer application durations. Mann-Whitney U-tests were used for the statistical analyses. The application of the V-prep for 30 s showed better values than the acid etchant did in the cell damage analysis and cell viability analysis (p = 0.03). V-prep at a 1:10 concentration applied for a 30 s duration can preserve the viability of gingival fibroblasts cells up to 100%. The toxicity of V-prep is equal or lower than the toxicity of the acid etchant that is commonly used in dentistry. Thus, the V-prep can be used with precautions intra-orally, and it should be applied on the enamel as a gel for 30 s only before it is rinsed and removed.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: A bonding material can be acceptable in orthodontics when Shear Bond Strength (SBS) is higher than 5.9Mpa. The aim of our study was to compare the bonding of a metal orthodontic bracket "in vitro" under different types of healthy enamel surface preparations and with two bonding products: the composite and the Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement (RMGIC). METHODS: Premolars preserved in 1% thymol water were bonded on their vestibular and palatal/lingual surfaces with different techniques of bonding and surface preparation: Group 1: Etching+Bonding+Composite, Group 2: Etching+Fuji Ortho LC, Group 3: V-prep+Fuji Ortho LC, Group 4: V-prep+Fuji Ortho LC+Thermocycling. The SBS was measured in Newton on the universal testing machine and the sample was observed under an optical microscope with 10-fold magnification to note the adhesive remnant index score (ARI), before and after thermocycling. RESULTS: 120 premolars were used in this study. RMGIC bonding was significantly increased when the surface was prepared at V-prep (P<0.001). In these conditions, RMGIC bonding on the buccal surface was similar to that of the composite and superior on the palatal/lingual surface (P=1). After 2 years of aging using a thermocycling machine for simulation, RMGIC bonding significantly decreased (P<0.001). The ARI score was significantly lower for the RMGIC group than the composite group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: RMGIC bonding with V-prep preparation is recommended for palatal/lingual surfaces and for hard-to-dry surfaces. For vestibular surfaces, studies are still needed to recommend bonding with RMGIC instead of composite.