The effect of a tin-containing fluoride mouth rinse on the bond between resin composite and erosively demineralised dentin Abstract Objectives: To evaluate the effect of a tin-containing fluoride (Sn/F) mouth rinse on microtensile bond strength (µTBS) between resin composite and erosively demineralised dentin. Materials and Methods:Dentin of 120 human molars was erosively demineralised using a 10-day cyclic de-and remineralisation model. For 40 molars the model comprised erosive demineralisation only, for another 40 the model included treatment with NaF solution, and for yet another 40 the model included treatment with a Sn/F mouth rinse. In half of these molars (n=20) the demineralised organic matrix was continuously removed by collagenase. SiC paper ground, non-erosively demineralised molars served as control (n=20). Subsequently, µTBS of Clearfil SE/Filtek Z250 to the dentin was measured and failure mode determined.Additionally, surfaces were evaluated by SEM and EDX.Results: Compared to the non-erosively demineralised control, erosive demineralisation resulted in significantly lower µTBS regardless of the removal of demineralised organic matrix. Treatment with NaF increased µTBS, but the level of µTBS obtained by the non-erosively demineralised control was only reached when the demineralised organic matrix had been removed. The Sn/F mouth rinse led to significantly higher µTBS than did the non-erosively demineralised control, both with or without removal of demineralised organic matrix. The Sn/F mouth rinse yielded higher µTBS than did the NaF solution.Conclusions: Treatment of erosively demineralised dentin with a NaF solution or a Sn/F mouth rinse increased the bond strength of resin composite.Clinical Relevance: Bond strength of resin composite to eroded dentin was not negatively influenced by treatment with a tin-containing fluoride mouth rinse.

The aim of our study is to evaluate the performance of surface sealants and conventional polishing after ageing procedures. Eighty circular composite restorations were performed on extracted human molars. After standardised roughening, the restorations were either sealed with one of three surface sealants (Lasting Touch (LT), BisCover LV (BC), G-Coat Plus (GP) or a dentin adhesive Heliobond (HB)) or were manually polished with silicon polishers (MP) (n = 16). The average roughness (Ra) and colourimetric parameters (CP) (L*a*b*) were evaluated. The specimens underwent an artificial ageing process by thermocycling, staining (coffee) and abrasive (toothbrushing) procedures. After each ageing step, Ra and CP measurements were repeated. A qualitative surface analysis was performed with SEM. The differences between the test groups regarding Ra and CP values were analysed with nonparametric ANOVA analysis (α = 0.05). The lowest Ra values were achieved with HB. BC and GP resulted in Ra values below 0.2 μm (clinically relevant threshold), whereas LT and MP sometimes led to higher Ra values. LT showed a significantly higher discolouration after the first coffee staining, but this was normalised to the other groups after toothbrushing. The differences between the measurements and test groups for Ra and CP were statistically significant. However, the final colour difference showed no statistical difference among the five groups. SEM evaluation showed clear alterations after ageing in all coating groups. Surface sealants and dentin adhesives have the potential to reduce surface roughness but tend to debond over time. Surface sealants can only be recommended for polishing provisional restorations.

This study evaluated (1) the micromorphology by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and (2) the adhesive performance by microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of diamond bur-treated dentin compared to Er:YAG laser-treated dentin of human primary teeth. (1) For qualitative SEM evaluation, dentin of 18 second primary molars (n = 3/method) was treated with either diamond bur as a control (group 1a: 40 μm diamond bur only (clinical situation); group 1b: grinding + 40 μm diamond bur) or with Er:YAG laser (group 2a (clinical situation, manufacturer's settings): 200 mJ/25 Hz (5 W) + 100 mJ/35 Hz (3.5 W) laser only; group 2b (experimental setting "high"): grinding + 400 mJ/20 Hz (8 W); group 2c (manufacturer's setting "finishing"): grinding + 100 mJ/35 Hz (3.5 W); group 2d (experimental setting "low"): grinding + 50 mJ/35 Hz (1.75 W)). (2) For evaluation of adhesive performance, 64 second primary molars were divided into four groups and treated as described for group 1b and groups 2b/c/d (n = 16/method), and μTBS of Clearfil SE/Clearfil Majesty Esthetic to dentin was measured. The SEM micrographs were qualitatively analyzed. The μTBS values were compared with a Kruskal-Wallis test. The significance level was set at α = 0.05. SEM micrographs showed the typical micromorphologies with a smear layer for the diamond bur groups and open dentin tubules for all laser-treated groups. However, in group 2d, the laser beam had insufficiently irradiated the dentin area, rendering the underlying ground surface partly visible. There were no statistically significant differences between μTBS values of the four groups (p = 0.394). This suggests that Er:YAG laser treatment of dentin of primary molars provides bond strengths similar to those obtained following diamond bur treatment.

Tin-chloride pretreatment had a beneficial influence on the bond promoting capacity of the MDP-containing adhesive system Clearfil SE.

Uptake of eugenol from eugenol-containing temporary materials may reduce the adhesion of subsequent resin-based restorations. This study investigated the effect of duration of exposure to zinc oxide-eugenol (ZOE) cement on the quantity of eugenol retained in dentin and on the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of the resin composite. The ZOE cement (IRM Caps) was applied onto the dentin of human molars (21 per group) for 1, 7, or 28 d. One half of each molar was used to determine the quantity of eugenol (by spectrofluorimetry) and the other half was used for μTBS testing. The ZOE-exposed dentin was treated with either OptiBond FL using phosphoric acid (H₃PO₄) or with Gluma Classic using ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) conditioning. One group without conditioning (for eugenol quantity) and two groups not exposed to ZOE (for eugenol quantity and μTBS testing) served as controls. The quantity of eugenol ranged between 0.33 and 2.9 nmol mg⁻¹ of dentin (median values). No effect of the duration of exposure to ZOE was found. Conditioning with H₃PO₄ or EDTA significantly reduced the quantity of eugenol in dentin. Nevertheless, for OptiBond FL, exposure to ZOE significantly decreased the μTBS, regardless of the duration of exposure. For Gluma Classic, the μTBS decreased after exposure to ZOE for 7 and 28 d. OptiBond FL yielded a significantly higher μTBS than did Gluma Classic. Thus, ZOE should be avoided in cavities later to be restored with resin-based materials.