Evaluation of the Interfaces between Restorative and Regenerative Biomaterials Used in Vital Pulp Therapy

Abstract

Background: Calcium-silicate-based cements (CSC) have gained an increasing scientific and clinical relevance, enabling more conservative approaches, namely pulp preservation and regeneration therapies. This research aims to study the influence of four clinical variables on the interfaces between CSC and composite adhesive restoration, concerning shear bond strength (SBS) and ultra-morphological patterns. Methods: SBS tests were performed in 320 specimens divided in 16 groups (n = 20) according to: two CSC (NuSmile® NeoMTA, BiodentineTM); two adhesive systems (ClearfilTM SE Bond 2 (CSEB2), ClearfilTM Universal Bond Quick (CUBQ)); optional application of an additional hydrophobic bonding layer (HBL); two restoration times (immediate, seven days). Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was performed to conduct the ultra-morphology interface analysis in 32 deciduous molars prepared and randomly allocated into the 16 groups. Results: Globally, SBS tests showed higher bond strength of CUBQ compared to CSEB2 (p < 0.001), as with an additional HBL application (p = 0.014) and delayed restoration (p < 0.001). SEM showed the interpenetration between adhesive systems and CSC forming a hybrid layer, whose depth and thickness depended on the restoration time and adhesive strategy. Conclusions: The independent clinical variables adhesive system, application of an additional HBL and restoration time affected the bond performance and ultra-morphological interface between composite adhesive restoration and CSC.

Morphological Interface Between Restorative and Pulp-Capping Materials: A Systematic Review

“…Therefore, as Figure 1 search flowchart demonstrates, 5 studies were included for qualitative data synthesis. [20][21][22][23][24] In Table 1, the literature search findings are outlined.…”

“…The quality assessment results using the "Modified CONSORT checklist of items for reporting in vitro studies of dental materials" (Faggion, 2012) 15 are presented in Table 2. From a total of 5 studies assessed, 4 studies had results between 50% and 60% in terms of the quality of the data reported in their respective papers, [20][21][22][23] while the study by Xavier et al 24 had the highest quality assessment report at 70%. All the articles presented a well-summarized abstract, specific background, and explanation of rationale, as well as clear objectives and/or hypotheses (items 1, 2a and 2b).…”

“…they were used to carry out fracture type analysis on a stereomicroscope 21 and shear bond strength tests, 24 investigations out of the scope of this review. Statistical analyses and outcomes along with their significance levels (items 10 and 11) were performed and reported in all studies except for the manuscript by Camilleri 20 which investigated only three samples and therefore not suitable to carry out.…”

Biomateryallerin Üniversal Adeziv sistemlere Bağlanma Dayanımının Karşılaştırılması: İn Vitro Çalışma

“…19,20 Bu bağlanmayla ilgili, arayüzde kimyasal bir bağın olup olmadığı aydınlatılmamıştır. 21 Son zamanlarda, ÜA sistemler klinik koşullara ve klinisyenin tercihlerine bağlı olarak etchrinse, selfetch veya selektif etch modlarında kullanılmaktadır. Bu tek şişe adezivler, basit uygulama prosedürleri ve kısa uygulama süreleri nedeniyle tercih edilmektedir.…”

“…Adeziv sistemlerdeki monomerin hidrofilik özellikleri interdifüzyonu kolaylaştırabilir ancak, fosforik asit ve adeziv sistemlerin asitlik derecesi KS simanların alkalitesi tarafından tamponlanabilir. 21 Biodentin; hızlı sertleşen, yüksek basınç dayanımına sahip dentin yerine geçebilecek bir materyal olarak tanıtıldı. Trikalsiyum silikat, zirkonyum oksit ve kalsiyum karbonat içeren toz; su, kalsiyum klorür ve modifiye edilmiş bir polikarboksilat karışımı sıvı ile karıştırıldığında hızla sertleşir.…”