European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2026
Effect of ammonia-free silver fluoride and silver diammine fluoride on immediate microshear bond strength of resin-modified glass ionomer to demineralised primary tooth dentine.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Abedinzade Zare A, Vafadar M, Behroozibakhsh M, Hashemian A, Lari M, Abtahi S
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the effect of water-based ammonia-free silver fluoride (SF) and silver diammine fluoride (SDF) on the microshear bond strength (MSBS) of resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGIC) to artificially demineralised primary tooth dentine.
METHODS: Twenty-four extracted primary molars were prepared to expose mid-coronal dentine; two bonding sites per tooth (total = 48 specimens) were chemically demineralised (pH 4.8) to simulate active caries. Specimens were randomised into three groups (n = 16): SF (Riva Star Aqua), SDF (Cariestop 30%), and Control (distilled water). RMGIC (Riva Light Cure HV) was bonded and stored for 24 h at 37 °C. MSBS was measured using a universal testing machine, and failure modes were analysed using a stereomicroscope. Data were analysed using one-way ANOVA with Tamhane's T2 post hoc test (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: The SF group exhibited significantly lower bond strength (3.65 ± 1.80 MPa) than the Control (6.86 ± 3.15 MPa, p < 0.01) and SDF groups (6.65 ± 4.80 MPa, p < 0.05). No significant difference was found between SDF and Control (p > 0.05); however, the SDF group demonstrated greater variability, consistent with Weibull analysis. Adhesive failure predominated across all groups, with SDF showing more mixed failures.
CONCLUSION: Water-based SF significantly compromised RMGIC adhesion to demineralised primary tooth dentine. SDF maintained comparable mean bond strength to the control but with higher variability. Ammonia-free SF formulations may reduce immediate RMGIC retention when used before restoration, and this interaction may warrant protocol optimisation in SMART-based applications.
METHODS: Twenty-four extracted primary molars were prepared to expose mid-coronal dentine; two bonding sites per tooth (total = 48 specimens) were chemically demineralised (pH 4.8) to simulate active caries. Specimens were randomised into three groups (n = 16): SF (Riva Star Aqua), SDF (Cariestop 30%), and Control (distilled water). RMGIC (Riva Light Cure HV) was bonded and stored for 24 h at 37 °C. MSBS was measured using a universal testing machine, and failure modes were analysed using a stereomicroscope. Data were analysed using one-way ANOVA with Tamhane's T2 post hoc test (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: The SF group exhibited significantly lower bond strength (3.65 ± 1.80 MPa) than the Control (6.86 ± 3.15 MPa, p < 0.01) and SDF groups (6.65 ± 4.80 MPa, p < 0.05). No significant difference was found between SDF and Control (p > 0.05); however, the SDF group demonstrated greater variability, consistent with Weibull analysis. Adhesive failure predominated across all groups, with SDF showing more mixed failures.
CONCLUSION: Water-based SF significantly compromised RMGIC adhesion to demineralised primary tooth dentine. SDF maintained comparable mean bond strength to the control but with higher variability. Ammonia-free SF formulations may reduce immediate RMGIC retention when used before restoration, and this interaction may warrant protocol optimisation in SMART-based applications.