Maryam Khoroushi

Objectives: Photopolymerization immediately sets dual-cure cements and prevents the continuation of chemical polymerization. Delayed light-curing allows the chemical process to continue up to the point before starting irradiation; however, there is a controversy in this respect. The present study evaluates the effect of delayed light-curing through a zirconia disc on the microhardness and fracture toughness (KIC) of two types of dual-cure cement. Materials and Methods: Samples measuring 25×5×3 mm3 were prepared for fracture toughness test, and discs measuring 5 mm in diameter and 3 mm in thickness were prepared for microhardness test using Bifix and BisCem cements. Light-curing protocols were as follows: immediate light-curing (group A), a 2-minute delay (group B), a 5-minute delay (group C), direct irradiation (group D), and no irradiation (group E). In groups A to C, light-curing was carried out through a zirconia disc. Data were analyzed by two-way and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), post-hoc Tukey's test, and Kruskal-Wallis test at 95% confidence interval. Results: There was a significant difference in the microhardness of the cements (P=0.00). Delayed light-curing had no effect on microhardness (P=0.080). The microhardness of BisCem in group E was significantly lower than that in group D (P=0.015). The fracture toughness of Bifix in groups B and C was significantly different than that in group E and BisCem groups. Conclusions: Under the limitations of our study, delayed light-curing had different effects on microhardness and fracture toughness. Differences in light-curing protocols resulted in different effects based on the cement type. Light-curing is recommended to achieve optimal mechanical properties.

Background: The main aim of restorative dentistry is to restore and preserve dental health with the use of appropriate restorative modalities to protect the pulp and restore its function. This study compared the effect of different surface treatments of mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) on the bond strength of composite resin to MTA. Materials and Methods: Forty cylindrical acrylic blocks with a hole were prepared and filled by ProRoot MTA. The samples were assigned to four groups: Group 1 – no surface treatment; Group 2 – phosphoric acid etching; Group 3 – sandblasting; and Group 4 – hydrofluoric acid (HF) etching, rinsing, and silane application. OptiBond Solo Plus adhesive was utilized in all the groups. Then, composite resin cylinders were bonded to sample surfaces. The samples were thermocycled and tested for microshear bond strength using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Data were analyzed with Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney tests. Scanning electron microscopy images were prepared for each study group after surface treatments. Results: Means and standard deviations of bond strength values in study groups 1–4 were 14.83 ± 7.76, 21.85 ±7.99, 6.48 ± 3.89, and 26.01 ± 11.09 Mpa, respectively. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, phosphoric acid etching or HF etching plus silanization was preferred to surface treatment of MTA before composite resin bonding.

Secondary caries, degradation of the dentin-resin interface and fracture of the restoration are the most common forms of failure. The aim of this study was to assess the interfacial fracture toughness of three different adhesive approaches and to compare their fracture toughness after surface treatment with antioxidant. Seventy two dentin blocks with 3×4mm dimension and 3mm thickness were prepared and attached to precured 3×4×12mm composite blocks from both sides. Six adhesive groups (N=12), All-bond universal, Scotchbond universal and Clearfil SE bond with or without antioxidant treatment (Sodium Ascorbate 10% )were applied to dentin surfaces, a 160µ polyethylene paper formed the chevron in adhesive-dentin interfaces. Chevron-notched beam fracture toughness was measured following a modified ISO 24370 standard. The uniform composite-dentin-composite block was subjected to a 4-point test in universal machine. Data were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis, Wilcoxon signed-rank and Mann-Whitney tests (α =0.05). Different adhesive approaches yielded different significant in fracture toughness rates. A significant increase of fracture toughness was observed between adhesive groups after antioxidant surface treatment. The difference in fracture toughness between Scotchbond universal and All-bond universal were significant. The highest value of fracture toughness was reported for Clearfil SE bond and the lowest value was found for All-bond universal. Sodium ascorbate as antioxidant surface treatment had a significant effect in increasing the fracture toughness. Key words:Chevron-notched beam fracture toughness, fracture toughness, dentin, adhesive, antioxidant.

It has been reported that the water, solvents, or the primer incorporated into adhesive resins decrease the polymerization, compromise the mechanical properties, reduce the bond strength, and lead to a poor bonding performance of self-etch adhesives. This article evaluated the effect of air-drying and light-curing duration of self-etch adhesives on the micro-shear bond strength between composite resin and dentin. A total of 120 extracted sound human third molars were randomly divided into twelve groups (n=10). The occlusal dentin in each tooth was exposed. Clearfil SE Bond (CSEB) and Clearfil S3 Bond (CS3B) were used according to the manufacturer’s instructions, followed by air-drying for 3 and 10 seconds in different groups. The adhesives were light-cured for 10, 20 and 40 seconds in different subgroups. Next, the composite resin (Clearfil AP-X) was placed on the dentin surface and was polymerized for 40 seconds. The micro-shear bond strength values were determined using a universal testing machine, and the results were statistically analyzed by three-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc test (α=0.05). CSEB exhibited a significantly higher dentin bond strength than CS3B. Increasing the curing time of CSEB resulted in an increase in the bond strength, whereas an increase in the air-drying time did not affect the bond strength of the two adhesives. Within the limitations of this study, an increase in the curing time improved the bond strength of CSEB, whereas the air-drying time did not affect the bond strength of the evaluated adhesives.

Contemporary Clinical Dentistry, Contemp Clin Dent is the official publication of Maharishi Markandeshwar University

Khoroushi M, et al. Restor Dent Endod. 2016 Aug;41(3):196-201. https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2016.41.3.196

Background: Dual-cured composite resins are similar to self-cured composite resins in some of their clinical applications due to inadequate irradiation, lack of irradiation, or delayed irradiation. Therefore, incompatibility with self-etch adhesives (SEAs) should be taken into account with their use. On the other, the extent of dentin dehydration has a great role in the quality of adhesion of these resin materials to dentin. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of dentin dehydration and composite resin polymerization mode on bond strength of two SEAs. Materials and Methods: A total of 120 dentinal specimens were prepared from extracted intact third molars. Half of the samples were dehydrated in ethanol with increasing concentrations. Then Clearfil SE Bond (CSEB) and Prompt L-Pop (PLP) adhesives were applied in the two groups. Cylindrical composite resin specimens were cured using three polymerization modes: (1) Immediate light-curing, (2) delayed light-curing after 20 min, and (3) self-curing. Bond strength was measured using universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Data were analyzed with two-way ANOVA and Duncan post hoc tests. Statistical significance was defined at P < 0.05. Results: There were no significant differences for CSEB subgroups with hydrated and dehydrated dentin samples between the three different curing modes (P > 0.05). PLP showed significant differences between subgroups with the lowest bond strength in hydrated dentin with delayed light-curing and self-cured mode of polymerization. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, a delay in composite resin light-curing or using chemically cured composite resin had a deleterious effect on dentin bond strength of single-step SEAs used in the study.

Bioactive glass air abrasion is a conservative technique to remove initial decalcified tissue and caries. This study examined the shear bond strength of composite resin to sound and decalcified enamel air-abraded by bioactive glass (BAG) or alumina using etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives. Forty-eight permanent molars were root-amputated and sectioned mesiodistally. The obtained 96 specimens were mounted in acrylic resin; the buccal and lingual surfaces remained exposed. A demineralizing solution was used to decalcify half the specimens. Both sound and decalcified specimens were divided into two groups of alumina and bioactive glass air abrasion. In each group, the specimens were subdivided into two subgroups of Clearfil SE Bond or OptiBond FL adhesives (n=12). Composite resin cylinders were bonded on enamel surfaces cured and underwent thermocycling. The specimens were tested for shear bond strength. Data were analyzed using SPSS 16.0 and three-way ANOVA (α=0.05). Similar to the experimental groups, the enamel surface of one specimen underwent SEM evaluation. No significant differences were observed in composite resin bond strength subsequent to alumina or bioactive glass air abrasion preparation techniques (P=0.987). There were no statistically significant differences between the bond strength of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesive groups (P=1). Also, decalcified or intact enamel groups had no significant difference (P=0.918). However, SEM analysis showed much less enamel irregularities with BAG air abrasion compared to alumina air abrasion. Under the limitations of this study, preparation of both intact and decalcified enamel surfaces with bioactive glass air abrasion results in similar bond strength of composite resin in comparison with alumina air abrasion using etch-&-rinse or self-etch adhesives.