Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Dent J (Basel). 2019 Apr 1;7(2). pii: E35. doi: 10.3390/dj7020035.

Effect of Methods of Biosilicate Microparticle Application on Dentin Adhesion.

Author information

1
Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Ribeirão Preto School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Av. do Café s/n, Monte Alegre, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo 14040-904, Brazil. chinelatti@usp.br.
2
Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Ribeirão Preto School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Av. do Café s/n, Monte Alegre, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo 14040-904, Brazil. egle.santos@usp.br.
3
Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Ribeirão Preto School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Av. do Café s/n, Monte Alegre, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo 14040-904, Brazil. catirapelli@forp.usp.br.
4
Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Ribeirão Preto School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Av. do Café s/n, Monte Alegre, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo 14040-904, Brazil. ferpanzeri@usp.br.

Abstract

Restorative procedures associated with bioglasses have shown to be a strategy to satisfy the contemporary concept of minimally invasive dentistry. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate bond strength to dentin treated by two different methods of biosilicate microparticle application. Dentin surfaces from 30 sound human molars were exposed and randomly assigned into three groups (n = 10) according to the surface treatment: (1) blasting with biosilicate microparticles (distance = 1 cm/pressure = 5 bar/time = 1 min); (2) 10% biosilicate microparticles paste; and (3) control (no treatment). After, dentin surfaces were restored with self-etch adhesive (Adper Easy Bond) and nanofilled composite (Filtek Z350). Specimens were sectioned perpendicularly to the adhesive interface to obtain sticks (cross-section area = 1 mm²), which were submitted to microtensile test (0.5 mm/min; 50 kgf). Data were analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey's test (α = 5%). Dentin/adhesive interfaces were morphologically analyzed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Data analysis showed that biosilicate-treated groups reached similar results (p > 0.05) and both of them demonstrated higher values (p < 0.05) than control group. SEM micrographs revealed hybridization with clear resin tags and no separation between resin-dentin adhesive interfaces. Within the limitations of this study, surface treatment with biosilicate positively influenced the adhesion to dentin and does not alter the morphology of the adhesive interface.

KEYWORDS:

bioglass; dentin; hybrid layer; micro-tensile; surface treatment

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center