Bonding to Dentin Contaminated with Ceramic-Repair Primers/Etchants
Issued Date
2025-01-01
Resource Type
ISSN
14615185
eISSN
17579988
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-105021879053
Pubmed ID
41231395
Journal Title
Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
Volume
27
Start Page
221
End Page
230
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Journal of Adhesive Dentistry Vol.27 (2025) , 221-230
Suggested Citation
Limvisitsakul A., Likhitthaworn T., Kaophun S., Van Meerbeek B., Pongprueksa P. Bonding to Dentin Contaminated with Ceramic-Repair Primers/Etchants. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry Vol.27 (2025) , 221-230. 230. doi:10.3290/j.jad.c_2336 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/116560
Title
Bonding to Dentin Contaminated with Ceramic-Repair Primers/Etchants
Author's Affiliation
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate bonding to dentin contaminated with primers/etchants used for adjacent ceramic repair. Materials and Methods: 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)+SBU<inf>E&R</inf> (uncontaminated E&R UA control), HF+PA+SBU<inf>E&R</inf>, MEP+PA+SBU<inf>E&R</inf>, PA+MEP+SBU<inf>E&R</inf>, SBU<inf>SE</inf> (uncontaminated SE UA control), HF+SBU<inf>SE</inf>, MEP+SBU<inf>SE</inf>, CSE<inf>SE</inf> (uncontaminated SE control), HF+CSE<inf>SE</inf>, MEP+CSE<inf>SE</inf>. 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). Results: 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. Conclusions: Dentin contamination with MEP and HF impacted self-etch (SE) bonding but not etch&rinse (E&R) bonding.