1307 Bonding performance of recent all-in-one adhesive systems to abrasion-lesion dentin

Saturday, March 24, 2012: 9:45 a.m. - 11 a.m.
Presentation Type: Poster Session
M. MAENO1, S. AKIYAMA1, S. OGAWA1, M. HARA1, T. MASEKI1, Y. NARA1, and I.L. DOGON2, 1Dept. of Operative Dentistry, Nippon Dental University, Tokyo, Japan, 2School of Dental Medicine, Harvard University, Boston, MA
Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the bonding performance of recent all-in-one adhesive systems to cervical abrasion lesion dentin in comparison with the surfaces of cervical sound enamel and dentin.

Method: Four recent all-in-one adhesive systems, two latest experimental systems; EXL759(EXL, 3M ESPE) and MTB200(MTB, Kuraray), and two systems on the market; Adper Easy Bond(AEB, 3M ESPE) and Clearfil Tri-S Bond(CTS, Kuraray), and a popular self-etching primer system; Clearfil SE Bond(CSE, Kuraray, for control) were used. The exposed dentin surface of cervical abrasion lesion(AD) of 25 extracted human premolars was cleaned with a polishing brush and water. Standardized V-shaped cavity with a bevel at occlusal enamel was prepared in the buccocervical region of 25 extracted human premolars. The surface of AD and the surfaces of beveled sound enamel(SE) and gingival sound dentin wall(SD) of the standardized cavity were pretreated clinically with the five systems according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The immediate tensile bond strength(ITBS) of each system to AD, SE and SD were measured(n=5) with a custom-made portable adhesion tester (JDR 75, 1996). The data were statistically analyzed using ANOVA, Tukey’s q-test, and student’s t-test.

Result: The mean ITBS (s.d.) in MPa to AD/SE/SD were EXL; 23.7(5.1)/24.0(5.8)/24.3(5.9), MTB; 24.4(6.0)/22.9(5.2)/24.6(5.5), AEB; 22.3(6.3)/23.5(5.3)/26.0(6.1), CTS; 17.5(3.8)/22.0(6.5)/24.4(4.4), CSE; 21.5(4.4)/22.7(3.2)/24.9(5.3). There were no differences in the ITBS among five systems, regardless of the difference in tooth surface. The ITBS of TSB to AD was significantly smaller than the value to SD at p<0.05, no differences in the ITBS of other systems among three tooth surfaces were recognized.

Conclusion: The bonding performance of recent all-in-one adhesive systems to cervical abrasion lesion dentin was equivalent to that to the surfaces of sound enamel and dentin. In addition the systems could obtain clinically acceptable ITBS that was similar to SEB.

Keywords: Adhesion, Composites, Dental materials, Dentin bonding agents and Enamel