Bonding to Dentin Contaminated with Ceramic-Repair Primers/Etchants

dc.contributor.authorLimvisitsakul A.
dc.contributor.authorLikhitthaworn T.
dc.contributor.authorKaophun S.
dc.contributor.authorVan Meerbeek B.
dc.contributor.authorPongprueksa P.
dc.contributor.correspondenceLimvisitsakul A.
dc.contributor.otherMahidol University
dc.date.accessioned2026-05-07T18:19:14Z
dc.date.available2026-05-07T18:19:14Z
dc.date.issued2025-01-01
dc.description.abstractPurpose: 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.
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Adhesive Dentistry Vol.27 (2025) , 221-230
dc.identifier.doi10.3290/j.jad.c_2336
dc.identifier.eissn17579988
dc.identifier.issn14615185
dc.identifier.pmid41231395
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-105021879053
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/116560
dc.rights.holderSCOPUS
dc.subjectDentistry
dc.titleBonding to Dentin Contaminated with Ceramic-Repair Primers/Etchants
dc.typeArticle
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=105021879053&origin=inward
oaire.citation.endPage230
oaire.citation.startPage221
oaire.citation.titleJournal of Adhesive Dentistry
oaire.citation.volume27
oairecerif.author.affiliationKU Leuven– University Hospital Leuven
oairecerif.author.affiliationMahidol University, Faculty of Dentistry

Files

Collections