Effect of erosive challenges on deciduous teeth undergoing restorative procedures with different adhesive protocols - an in vitro study

Abstract

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of erosive challenges on the tooth- restoration interface of deciduous teeth treated with different adhesive protocols.Material and MethodsDeciduous molars were cut mesiodistally, then embedded, abraded and polished (n=80). Samples were randomly divided according to the adhesive system used into: G1 (Adper Single Bond2®, etch-and-rinse), G2 (Universal Single Bond®, self-etching), G3 (OptibondFL®, etch-and-rinse with Fluoride) and G4 (BondForce®, self-etching with Fluoride). After standardized cavity preparation (2 mm diameter x 2 mm depth), adhesive systems were applied and samples were restored (composite resin Z350®). Half of the samples were exposed to erosive/abrasive cycles (n = 10, each adhesive group), and the other half (control group; n = 10) remained immersed in artificial saliva. For microleakage analysis, samples were submersed in methylene blue and analyzed at 40x magnifications. Cross-sectional microhardness (CSMH) was carried out (50 g/5 s) at 25 μm, 50 μm, and 100 μm from the eroded surface and at 25 μm, 75 μm, and 125 μm from the enamel bond interface.ResultsRegarding microleakage, 7.5% of the samples showed no dye infiltration, 30% showed dye infiltration only at the enamel interface, and 62.5% showed dye infiltration through the dentin-enamel junction, with no difference between groups (p≥0.05). No significant difference was observed in CSMH at different depths (two-way ANOVA, p≥0.05).ConclusionsWe did not observe significant changes in microleakage or CSMH after erosive/abrasive challenges in deciduous teeth treated with different adhesive protocols (etch-and-rinse and self-etching adhesives, with and without fluoride).

Erosive tooth wear - why clinicians should be aware of this condition

“…In a recent in vitro study, different adhesive protocols were tested, with no significant difference among conventional adhesive systems or self-etching adhesives, with or without fluoride, regarding microleakage evaluation. 62 More studies should be done to evaluate the stability of restorations in eroded substrate, to guide treatment decisions. By now, we should advice clinicians to postpone as much as possible restorative procedures, especially in young patients, until the main etiological factor of ETW were not controlled.…”

Peptide Mediated Antimicrobial Dental Adhesive System

“…Invasive bacteria can infiltrate weak or impaired regions at the adhesive-dentin (a/d) interface leading to further biodegradation and secondary loss of adhesion, microleakage, and decay [4]. This vulnerable interface has been identified as the weakest link for the reduced durability of modern composite restorations [2,[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. Therefore, it is critical to design novel, enhanced composite adhesive formulations aimed to achieve improved interfacial binding and provide protection against bacterial colonization at the susceptible a/d interface.…”

Editorial

“…Por todo ello parece lógico pensar que estas diferencias en la composición y microestructura entre ambas denticiones implique que la naturaleza del substrato, así como sus propiedades actúen de modo diferente en relación al modo de adhesión y por lo tanto sea claramente inferior. (3) Como resultado de una adhesión defectuosa se puede producir microfiltaración a nivel del margen de la restauración permitiendo el paso de bacterias y demás produciendo daños a la pulpa, desarrollo de caries secundaria y degradación de los márgenes de la restauración comprometiéndose de este modo la duración de la restauración y la integridad dentaria.…”