Do Different Pretreatments of Dentine Surface Affect the Bond Strength with a Self-adhesive Resin Cement?

PURPOSE: To evaluate the microtensile bond strength of dentine/self-adhesive resin cement interface after several treatments on a dentine surface. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight human molars were selected and divided into four groups: no treatment (control (C)); 2% chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX); 25% polyacrylic acid (PA); and 23 ppm dispersive solution of silver nanoparticle (SN). Prepolymerised TPH resin composite (Dentsply) blocks were luted on the dentine surface using RelyX U200 self-adhesive resin cement (3M ESPE). Microtensile bond strength was measured (MPa) in a universal testing machine 24 h and 6 months after the bonding process. The fractured specimens were examined in an optical microscope and classified according to the fracture pattern. A representative sample of each group was observed by scanning electronic microscope. Data were submitted to analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's test to compare the mean among the groups (p <0.05). RESULTS: The highest microtensile bond strength values after 24 h were found for the PA group (13.34 ± 6.36 MPa), with no statistically significant difference for the C group (9.76 ± 3.11 Mpa). After 6 months, the highest microtensile bond strength values were found for the C group (9.09 ± 3.27 Mpa), with statistically significant difference only for the CHX group (2.94 ± 1.66 MPa). There was statistically significant difference only for the PA group when comparing the periods studied. Regardless of the surface treatment applied, there were more adhesive failures in both periods of time. CONCLUSION: Dentinal pretreatment with PA, as well as use of SN before the bonding procedure of self-adhesive resin cement to dentine, may be alternative bonding protocols.

Emergence profile customization technique during implant transfer.

This case report aimed to describe the clinical considerations in oral rehabilitation with prostheses on implants in the anterior region, using emergence profile customization technique during implant transfer. A patient presented with a missing left upper central incisor and with not satisfactory esthetic in the other upper incisors. After diagnosis, a treatment plan was elaborated: implant placement in this region; ceramic laminates for teeth 11 and 22, and full crown for tooth 12. During the impression procedure, the implant transfer was customized by copying the gingival profile. The prostheses were made using IPS e.max ceramic system and luted with resin cement. The patient was submitted to annual follow-up examinations that did not show any irregularity or deficiency in the prostheses. The technique performed is a viable alternative that can be used in oral rehabilitation with implants involving anterior teeth because it allows a predictable level of adaptation.

Influence of Light-curing Units on Surface Microhardness and Color Change of Composite Resins after Challenge.

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate microhardness and color change (ΔE) of composite resins, light cured with different light emission diodes (LEDs) and submitted to artificial accelerated aging (AAA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two composite resins with lucirin- TPO photoinitiator were selected: Tetric N-Ceram (Ivoclar Vivadent, A1) and Vit-l-escence (Ultradent, WO).A resin with the only camphorquinone photoinitiat or was chosen as a negative control: Filtek Z350XT (3M ESPE, WD). Disc-shaped specimens were prepared (5 mm diameter; 1.5 mm thick) and photopolymerized with an LED with one wavelength (Radii-Cal, SDI) or multiple wavelengths (Valo, Ultradent), for each composite resin (n = 10). Surface microhardness and color evaluations were performed immediately after specimen preparation and after AAA. Microhardness results were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests for multiple comparisons. To compare the evaluation of microhardness at different times, the Wilcoxon test was used. Mean values of ΔE, ΔL, Δa, and Δb were evaluated using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and Tukey test for multiple comparisons (a = 0.05). RESULTS: Regarding microhardness, a statistically significant difference between the two LEDs was observed for Vit-lescence after AAA. When comparing composite resins that were light-cured with the same device, FiltekZ350XT obtained the greatest microhardness. All groups presented a statistically significant decrease in microhardness from the initial time to the AAA. Regarding ΔE, no statistically significant difference between the two LEDs was observed. When comparing composite resins, FiltekZ350XT showed the highest ΔE values. CONCLUSION: In general, an LED with multiple wavelengths influenced the microhardness of only one resin containing lucirin-TPO after AAA. The ΔE was more influenced by the composite resin than the LED device. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The knowledge of composite resin with deficiencies in the polymerization mechanism could contribute to preventing restorations to become more susceptible to color change and reduction of the mechanical strength.