Shear Bond Strength of Two Self-Etching Adhesives to Air-Abraded Dentin: An in Vitro Study

Background: The aim of this research was to study the effect of air-abrasive treatment of dentin on the chemical composition of its surface and the adhesion strength of 2 self-etching adhesive systems (AS). Methods and Results: Powders based on aluminum oxide (Al2O3) (27µm) (KaVo, Biberach, Germany), sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) (40µm) (AIR-FlOW Classic Comfort, EMS, Nyon, Switzerland), and erythritol (14µm) (AIR-FLOW Plus, EMS, Nyon, Switzerland) were used for the air-abrasive treatment of adhesive surfaces. Bonding steps were carried out with Single Bond Universal (SBU) (3M ESPE, USA) and Bond Force 2 (BF2) (Toquyama, Japan). The adhesion strength of composite to dentin was evaluated on 80 samples prepared in accordance with the Ultradent Shear Bond Strength test. All samples were divided into 4 groups depending on the method of dentin surface processing. In the samples of Group 1 (n=20), aluminum oxide was used for the air-abrasive treatment of dentin. In Group 2 (n=20) and Group 3 (n=20), samples were treated using powders based on sodium bicarbonate and erythritol, respectively. Group 4 (control, n=20) included tooth samples in which the dentin surface was not air-abraded after preparation with carbide burs. Then, each group was divided into 2 subgroups (Sub-A and Sub-B) depending on the type of adhesive system used. Adhesive resin was applied and polymerized in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. Single Bond Universal (SBU) was used for the samples of Sub-A, and Bond Force 2 (BF2) (Toquyama, Japan) was used for the samples of Sub-B. Scanning electron microscopy and determining the surface elemental composition of samples were carried out on an SEM-EVO MA 10 (Carl Zeiss) and energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer with EDS Aztec Energy Advanced X-Act (Oxford Instruments). It was concluded that air-abrasive treatment of the dentin surface does not enhance the adhesion strength of composite material when using self-etch AS. Also, it was noted that the pH level of self-etch AS is not a crucial feature in determining the strength of the filling-tooth interface. The resulting variations in the elemental composition of dentin surface after air-abrasion with various mixtures and their effect on the efficacy of the different AS require further in vitro studies

Effect of Preheating on Mechanical Properties of Different Commercially Available Dental Resin Composites

Background: This study aimed to reveal the effect of preheating on the surface microhardness and shear strength of composite materials used in the restoration of posterior teeth. Methods and Results: There were 3 composite materials under the study: Estelite Posterior, Harmonize and Filtek Z550. To make static and dynamic tests of them, 120 filling samples were prepared. Of those, 60 samples were for surface hardness measurements and 60 samples were used to evaluate the shear strength of composite materials. We formed 12 study groups with 10 filling samples in each. Samples made off Estelite Posterior, Harmonize™, and Filtek™ were designated with E, H, and F capital letters, respectively; the "VH" abbreviation indicated static Vickers hardness testing and "SS" was assigned for dynamic shear testing; mark (°) was used when preheating was applied. Filling samples were made of heated (up to 60°C) and room-temperature (23-25°C) composite materials. The filling samples of EVH, EºVH, HVH, HºVH, FVH, and FºVH groups were subjected to a surface microhardness test. The samples of ESS, EºSS, HSS, HºSS, FSS, and FºSS groups were subjected to shear-strength assessment of materials. The surface microhardness of filling samples was measured using a ПMT-3 Vickers hardness tester and the Vickers hardness number (VHN) was calculated. Dynamic tests were carried out using an UltraTester machine (Ultradent, Inc., USA) and shear test method until the shear-strength (SS) filling sample had completely failed. After analysis of the obtained results, it was found that preheating had enhanced the surface hardness and mechanical strength of the composite materials used in the study. However, the positive influence of preheating was significant only in the EVH-EºVH, ESS-EºSS, HSS-HºSS, and FSS-FºSS groups in 1.21, 1.09, 1.33, and 1.16 times, respectively. In the HVH-HºVH and FVH-FºVH groups, the identified differences were not of significance despite the improvement in mean values at 1.08 and 1.1 times. Conclusion: Preheating of light-curing resin-based composites is not equally effective for static and dynamic mechanical properties of materials for dental restoration. Preliminary laboratory tests could have helped before their clinical use