Bonding to Dentin Contaminated with Ceramic-Repair Primers/Etchants

TL;DR

This study examines how primers and etchants used for ceramic repairs affect bonding to dentin, finding that self-etch bonding is more vulnerable to contamination than etch-and-rinse bonding.

Contribution

The study reveals that dentin contamination with ceramic-repair primers/etchants significantly impacts self-etch bonding but not etch-and-rinse bonding.

Findings

Self-etch bonding to dentin contaminated with MEP or HF was significantly less effective than to non-contaminated dentin.

Etch-and-rinse bonding was unaffected by dentin contamination with MEP or HF.

Self-etch bonding strength decreased significantly after 6 months of aging.

Abstract

To evaluate bonding to dentin contaminated with primers/etchants used for adjacent ceramic repair.

Mid-coronal dentin of sound human third molars was exposed and allocated to 10 experimental groups. The universal adhesive (UA) Single Bond Universal (“SBU,” 3M Oral Care), applied either in etch-and-rinse (E&R) or self-etch (SE) bonding mode, and the considered gold-standard SE adhesive Clearfil SE Bond X (“CSE,” Kuraray Noritake) were bonded to dentin contaminated with either Monobond Etch & Prime (“MEP,” Ivoclar) or IPS Ceramic Etching Gel (“HF,” Ivoclar) following 10 scenarios: phosphoric acid (PA)+SBUE&R (uncontaminated E&R UA control), HF+PA+SBUE&R, MEP+PA+SBUE&R, PA+MEP+SBUE&R, SBUSE (uncontaminated SE UA control), HF+SBUSE, MEP+SBUSE, CSESE (uncontaminated SE control), HF+CSESE, MEP+CSESE. Upon adhesive and composite application, the specimens were stored in artificial saliva at 37°C. After 1 week, all specimens were sectioned into resin-bonded dentin sticks, which were randomly distributed over two groups to be subjected to a microtensile bond-strength test immediately at 1 week or upon aging by storage in artificial saliva for 6 months. Statistics involved linear mixed-effects modeling with Bonferroni correction (P <0.05).

E&R bonding to dentin contaminated with MEP or HF did not significantly differ from bonding to non-contaminated dentin (controls). However, SE bonding to MEP- and HF-contaminated dentin was significantly less effective than to non-contaminated dentin (controls). Aging for 6 months did not reduce E&R bonding as compared to the 1-week data, while SE bonding was significantly less effective upon 6-month aging. E&R bonding was affected more when dentin was contaminated with MEP before phosphoric acid (PA) etching than when dentin was contaminated with MEP after PA etching.

Dentin contamination with MEP and HF impacted self-etch (SE) bonding but not etch&rinse (E&R) bonding.

Figures