Display options
Share it on

J Conserv Dent. 2016 Nov-Dec;19(6):555-559. doi: 10.4103/0972-0707.194019.

Resin bond strength to water versus ethanol-saturated human dentin pretreated with three different cross-linking agents.

Journal of conservative dentistry : JCD

Bhuvan Shome Venigalla, Pinnamreddy Jyothi, Shekhar Kamishetty, Smitha Reddy, Ravi Chandra Cherukupalli, Depa Arun Reddy

Affiliations

  1. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Sri Sai College of Dental Surgery, Vikarabad, Telangana, India.
  2. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, SVS Institute of Dental Sciences, Mahbubnagar, Telangana, India.
  3. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Guru Govind Singh College of Dental Sciences, Burhanpur, Madhya Pradesh, India.

PMID: 27994318 PMCID: PMC5146772 DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.194019

Abstract

CONTEXT: Resin-dentin bonds are unstable owing to hydrolytic and enzymatic degradation. Several approaches such as collagen cross-linking and ethanol-wet bonding (EWB) have been developed to overcome this problem. Collagen cross-linking improves the intrinsic properties of the collagen matrix. However, it leaves a water-rich collagen matrix with incomplete resin infiltration making it susceptible to fatigue degradation. Since EWB is expected to overcome the drawbacks of water-wet bonding (WWB), a combination of collagen cross-linking with EWB was tested.

AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the effect of pretreatment with different cross-linking agents such as ultraviolet A (UVA)-activated 0.1% riboflavin, 1 M carbodiimide, and 6.5 wt% proanthocyanidin on the immediate and long-term bond strengths of an etch and rinse adhesive system to water- versus ethanol-saturated dentin within clinically relevant application time periods.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN: Long-term

SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Eighty freshly extracted human molars were prepared to expose dentin, etched with 37% phosphoric acid for 15 s rinsed, and grouped randomly. They were blot-dried and pretreated with different cross-linkers: 0.1% riboflavin for 2 min followed by UVA activation for 2 min; 1 M carbodiimide for 2 min; 6.5 wt% proanthocyanidin for 2 min and rinsed. They were then bonded with Adper Single Bond Adhesive (3M ESPE), by either WWB or EWB, followed by resin composite build-ups (Filtek Z350, 3M ESPE). Bonded specimens in each group were then sectioned and divided into two halves. Microtensile bond strength was tested in one half after 24 h and the other after 6 months storage in artificial saliva.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Analysis was done using SPSS version 18 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Intergroup comparison of bond strength was done using ANOVA with

RESULTS: The microtensile bond strength of cross-linked groups was higher compared to control group (

CONCLUSIONS: 0.1% riboflavin pretreatment of dentin followed by UVA activation for 2 min exhibited highest increase in bond strength values at 24 h and least reduction in bond strength values after 6 months storage compared to other groups. Biomodification of dentin using collagen cross-linking followed by EWB exhibited a synergistic effect in improving the resin-dentin bond durability.

Keywords: Bond durability; carbodiimide; collagen cross-linking; ethanol-wet bonding; proanthocyanidin; ultraviolet A-activated riboflavin

Conflict of interest statement

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2011 Feb;96(2):242-8 - PubMed
  2. Dent Mater. 2014 Feb;30(2):227-33 - PubMed
  3. Dent Mater. 2009 Aug;25(8):1050-7 - PubMed
  4. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2008 Aug;86(2):330-4 - PubMed
  5. J Dent Res. 2010 Nov;89(11):1264-9 - PubMed
  6. J Dent Res. 2011 Aug;90(8):953-68 - PubMed
  7. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2007 Jan;80(1):268-72 - PubMed
  8. J Conserv Dent. 2011 Jan;14(1):62-7 - PubMed
  9. J Dent Res. 2010 Dec;89(12):1499-504 - PubMed
  10. Dent Mater. 2010 Apr;26(4):368-79 - PubMed
  11. Dent Mater. 2013 Oct;29(10):999-1011 - PubMed
  12. J Conserv Dent. 2010 Jul;13(3):116-8 - PubMed
  13. J Conserv Dent. 2011 Jul;14(3):306-8 - PubMed
  14. J Dent Res. 2009 Feb;88(2):146-51 - PubMed
  15. J Adhes Dent. 2012 Apr;14(2):113-20 - PubMed
  16. Dent Mater. 2013 Apr;29(4):485-92 - PubMed
  17. Dent Mater. 2014 Jul;30(7):735-41 - PubMed
  18. J Dent Res. 2004 Mar;83(3):216-21 - PubMed
  19. J Dent Res. 2012 Feb;91(2):192-6 - PubMed
  20. Dent Mater. 2011 Jan;27(1):1-16 - PubMed
  21. J Conserv Dent. 2010 Oct;13(4):173-83 - PubMed
  22. J Dent Res. 2011 Dec;90(12):1439-45 - PubMed
  23. Dent Mater. 2013 Jan;29(1):116-35 - PubMed
  24. J Conserv Dent. 2016 Sep-Oct;19(5):419-23 - PubMed
  25. Dent Mater. 2013 Jun;29(6):682-92 - PubMed
  26. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2010 Jul;94(1):250-5 - PubMed
  27. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2009 Oct;91(1):419-24 - PubMed
  28. J Dent Res. 2012 May;91(5):467-72 - PubMed

Publication Types