Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2021; 15(03): 448-453
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1721906
Original Article

Aging Methods—An Evaluation of Their Influence on Bond Strength

Gabriela Simões Teixeira
1   Department of Restorative Dentistry, Federal University of Santa Maria, Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
,
Gabriel Kalil Rocha Pereira
1   Department of Restorative Dentistry, Federal University of Santa Maria, Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
,
Alexandre Henrique Susin
1   Department of Restorative Dentistry, Federal University of Santa Maria, Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
› Author Affiliations Funding This study was funded by the Brazilian Federal Agency for Coordination of Improvement of Higher Education Personnel—CAPES (Finance Code 001).
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives To evaluate the effect of different artificial aging methods on the bond strength of a resin composite associated with a universal adhesive (Scotchbond Universal) used under two etching approaches (self-etch [SE] or etch-and-rinse [ER]) to enamel and dentin substrates.

Materials and Methods A total of 96 noncarious human third molars were prepared and randomly divided according to three factors (n = 6): substrate (enamel and dentin), adhesive approach (SE and ER), and aging method (water storage for 24 hours, 6 months, or 1 year; subjected to 10,000, 20,000, or 30,000 thermal cycles; and sodium hypochlorite [NaOCl] storage for 1 or 5 hours).

Statistical Analysis Microshear bond strength tests were conducted, and the collected data (MPa) were subjected to three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with post hoc Bonferroni tests (p < 0.05) and Weibull analysis. The failure pattern was also evaluated.

Results Three-way ANOVA revealed that the factors “substrate” (p = 0.00) and “aging method” (p = 0.00) had a significant effect on the bond strength, but the factor “adhesive approach” did not (p = 0.84). The bond strength in the enamel group for the SE approach was negatively affected under 20,000 and 30,000 thermal cycles. Weibull presented the highest m in the NaOCl storage for the 5 hours group to enamel using the SE and to dentin using ER approaches. Adhesive/mixed failures were predominant for all groups.

Conclusion Thermocycling aging (20,000 and 30,000 cycles) significantly reduced the bond strength to enamel using the SE approach. On the contrary, storage with the NaOCl method proved to increase bond strength under the evaluated conditions.

Keywords

artificial aging - interface degradation - hydrolysis - universal adhesive


Publication History

Article published online:
28 January 2021

© 2021. European Journal of Dentistry. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M. et al. A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res 2005; 84 (02) 118-132
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Borgo GO, Vieira-Junior WF, Theobaldo JD, Aguiar FHB, Lima DANL. Effect of dentin pretreatment with arginine on microshear bond strength of etch-and-rinse or self-etch adhesive systems. Eur J Dent 2019; 13 (02) 199-205
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Fukuoka A, Koshiro K, Inoue S. et al. Hydrolytic stability of one-step self-etching adhesives bonded to dentin. J Adhes Dent 2011; 13 (03) 243-248
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Frassetto A, Breschi L, Turco G. et al. Mechanisms of degradation of the hybrid layer in adhesive dentistry and therapeutic agents to improve bond durability–a literature review. Dent Mater 2016; 32 (02) e41-e53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Hanabusa M, Mine A, Kuboki T. et al. Bonding effectiveness of a new ‘multi-mode’ adhesive to enamel and dentine. J Dent 2012; 40 (06) 475-484
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Matos AB, Trevelin LT, da Silva BTF, Francisconi-Dos-Rios LF, Siriani LK, Cardoso MV. Bonding efficiency and durability: current possibilities. Braz Oral Res 2017; 31 (Suppl. 01) e57
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Cardoso MV, de Almeida Neves A, Mine A. et al. Current aspects on bonding effectiveness and stability in adhesive dentistry. Aust Dent J 2011; 56 (01) 31-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Kawazu M, Takamizawa T, Hirokane E. et al. Comparison of dentin bond durability of a universal adhesive and two etch-and-rinse adhesive systems. Clin Oral Investig 2020; 24 (08) 2889-2897
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 De Munck J, Ermis RB, Koshiro K. et al. NaOCl degradation of a HEMA-free all-in-one adhesive bonded to enamel and dentin following two air-blowing techniques. J Dent 2007; 35 (01) 74-83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Deng D, Yang H, Guo J, Chen X, Zhang W, Huang C. Effects of different artificial ageing methods on the degradation of adhesive-dentine interfaces. J Dent 2014; 42 (12) 1577-1585
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Scherrer SS, Cesar PF, Swain MV. Direct comparison of the bond strength results of the different test methods: a critical literature review. Dent Mater 2010; 26 (02) e78-e93
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Nagarkar S, Theis-Mahon N, Perdigão J. Universal dental adhesives: current status, laboratory testing, and clinical performance. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2019;107(6):2121–2131
  • 13 Suzuki S, Takamizawa T, Imai A. et al. Bond durability of universal adhesive to bovine enamel using self-etch mode. Clin Oral Investig 2018; 22 (03) 1113-1122
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Gale MS, Darvell BW. Thermal cycling procedures for laboratory testing of dental restorations. J Dent 1999; 27 (02) 89-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Amaral FL, Colucci V, Palma-Dibb RG, Corona SA. Assessment of in vitro methods used to promote adhesive interface degradation: a critical review. J Esthet Restor Dent 2007; 19 (06) 340-353
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Mobarak EH, El-Badrawy W, Pashley DH, Jamjoom H. Effect of pretest storage conditions of extracted teeth on their dentin bond strengths. J Prosthet Dent 2010; 104 (02) 92-97
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Tay FR, Pashley DH. Aggressiveness of contemporary self-etching systems. I: Depth of penetration beyond dentin smear layers. Dent Mater 2001; 17 (04) 296-308
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Tedesco TK, Montagner AF, Skupien JA, Soares FZ, Susin AH, Rocha RO. Starch tubing: an alternative method to build up microshear bond test specimens. J Adhes Dent 2013; 15 (04) 311-315
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Foong J, Lee K, Nguyen C. et al. Comparison of microshear bond strengths of four self-etching bonding systems to enamel using two test methods. Aust Dent J 2006; 51 (03) 252-257
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Davies D. A statistical approach to engineering design in ceramics. Proc Br Ceram Soc. 1973; 22: 429-452
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Stanley P, Fessler H, Siviil A. An engineer’s approach to the prediction of failure probability of brittle components. Proc Br Ceram Soc. 1973; 22: 453-487
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Burrow MF, Thomas D, Swain MV, Tyas MJ. Analysis of tensile bond strengths using Weibull statistics. Biomaterials 2004; 25 (20) 5031-5035
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 McCabe JF, Walls AW. The treatment of results for tensile bond strength testing. J Dent 1986; 14 (04) 165-168
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Carvalho RM, Manso AP, Geraldeli S, Tay FR, Pashley DH. Durability of bonds and clinical success of adhesive restorations. Dent Mater 2012; 28 (01) 72-86
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Sai K, Shimamura Y, Takamizawa T. et al. Influence of degradation conditions on dentin bonding durability of three universal adhesives. J Dent 2016; 54: 56-61
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 De Munck J, Mine A, Vivan Cardoso M. et al. Effect of dentin location and long-term water storage on bonding effectiveness of dentin adhesives. Dent Mater J 2011; 30 (01) 7-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Pashley DH, Ciucchi B, Sano H, Carvalho RM, Russell CM. Bond strength versus dentine structure: a modelling approach. Arch Oral Biol 1995; 40 (12) 1109-1118
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Tsuchiya K, Takamizawa T, Barkmeier WW. et al. Effect of a functional monomer (MDP) on the enamel bond durability of single-step self-etch adhesives. Eur J Oral Sci 2016; 124 (01) 96-102
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Moszner N, Salz U, Zimmermann J. Chemical aspects of self-etching enamel-dentin adhesives: a systematic review. Dent Mater 2005; 21 (10) 895-910
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 ISO TR 11450. Dental Materials - Guidance on testing of adhesion to tooth structure. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization; 1994: 1–14
  • 31 Hariri I, Shimada Y, Sadr A, Ichinose S, Tagami J. The effects of aging on shear bond strength and nanoleakage expression of an etch-and-rinse adhesive on human enamel and dentin. J Adhes Dent 2012; 14 (03) 235-243
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Wagner A, Wendler M, Petschelt A, Belli R, Lohbauer U. Bonding performance of universal adhesives in different etching modes. J Dent 2014; 42 (07) 800-807
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Gan J, Liu S, Zhou L, Wang Y, Guo J, Huang C. Effect of Nd:YAG laser irradiation pretreatment on the long-term bond strength of etch-and-rinse adhesive to dentin. Oper Dent 2017; 42 (01) 62-72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Nima G, Cavalli V, Bacelar-Sá R, Ambrosano GMB, Giannini M. Effects of sodium hypochlorite as dentin deproteinizing agent and aging media on bond strength of two conventional adhesives. Microsc Res Tech 2020; 83 (02) 186-195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Muñoz MA, Luque-Martinez I, Malaquias P. et al. In vitro longevity of bonding properties of universal adhesives to dentin. Oper Dent 2015; 40 (03) 282-292
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Perdigão J, Kose C, Mena-Serrano AP. et al. A new universal simplified adhesive: 18-month clinical evaluation. Oper Dent 2014; 39 (02) 113-127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Yoshida Y, Yoshihara K, Nagaoka N. et al. Self-assembled Nano-layering at the adhesive interface. J Dent Res 2012; 91 (04) 376-381
    Google Scholar