European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2024
Effect of enzymatic chemo-mechanical agents on adhesion of composite resin to dentin of permanent teeth: an in vitro study.
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.
Coelho A S, Vilhena L, Amaro I, Melo A, Paula A, Marto C M, Ferreira M M, Ramalho A, Carrilho E
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the effect of two enzymatic chemo-mechanical caries removal agents with conventional caries removal using rotatory instruments on the adhesion of composite resin to dentin of permanent teeth.
METHODS: The sample comprised 30 permanent molars with caries lesions extending to the dentin, randomly distributed into three groups (n = 10 each): 1-Caries removal with rotary instruments (control group); 2-Caries removal with Papacárie Duo® (F&A Laboratório Farmacêutico, São Paulo, Brazil); 3-Caries removal with Brix 3000™ (Brix S.R.L., Carcarañá, Argentina). After caries removal, the specimens were rinsed and dried. Scotchbond Universal™ adhesive (3 M, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA) was actively applied in self-etch mode and light-cured. Resin composite increments were applied using a silicone mold (3 × 3 × 2 mm) and light-cured. Shear bond strength (MPa), work-to-debonding (J/m2), and shear modulus (kPa) were evaluated. For statistical analysis, the level of significance was set at 5%.
RESULTS: The control group presented significantly higher shear bond strength values (8.50 ± 2.69 MPa) compared to the Brix 3000™ group (5.72 ± 1.55 MPa, p = 0.008). There were no significant differences between Papacárie Duo® (6.66 ± 0.86 MPa) and the other groups (p > 0.05). Regarding work-to-debonding, the Papacárie Duo® group had a significantly higher result (2944.41 ± 450.21 J/m2) than the Brix 3000™ group (1189.41 ± 504.13 J/m2, p < 0.001) and the control group (967.10 ± 270.01 J/m2, p < 0.001). Concerning shear modulus, the control group showed a significantly higher result (558.67 ± 168.96 kPa) than the Brix 3000™ group (339.79 ± 143.78 kPa, p = 0.008) and the Papacárie Duo® group (223.04 ± 127.30 kPa, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: While the application of Papacárie Duo® did not negatively affect composite resin adhesion to dentin of permanent teeth, the application of Brix 3000™ reduced adhesive forces, potentially limiting its clinical use. Further investigations are warranted to elucidate the effects of these materials on dentin substrate, particularly through clinical studies.
METHODS: The sample comprised 30 permanent molars with caries lesions extending to the dentin, randomly distributed into three groups (n = 10 each): 1-Caries removal with rotary instruments (control group); 2-Caries removal with Papacárie Duo® (F&A Laboratório Farmacêutico, São Paulo, Brazil); 3-Caries removal with Brix 3000™ (Brix S.R.L., Carcarañá, Argentina). After caries removal, the specimens were rinsed and dried. Scotchbond Universal™ adhesive (3 M, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA) was actively applied in self-etch mode and light-cured. Resin composite increments were applied using a silicone mold (3 × 3 × 2 mm) and light-cured. Shear bond strength (MPa), work-to-debonding (J/m2), and shear modulus (kPa) were evaluated. For statistical analysis, the level of significance was set at 5%.
RESULTS: The control group presented significantly higher shear bond strength values (8.50 ± 2.69 MPa) compared to the Brix 3000™ group (5.72 ± 1.55 MPa, p = 0.008). There were no significant differences between Papacárie Duo® (6.66 ± 0.86 MPa) and the other groups (p > 0.05). Regarding work-to-debonding, the Papacárie Duo® group had a significantly higher result (2944.41 ± 450.21 J/m2) than the Brix 3000™ group (1189.41 ± 504.13 J/m2, p < 0.001) and the control group (967.10 ± 270.01 J/m2, p < 0.001). Concerning shear modulus, the control group showed a significantly higher result (558.67 ± 168.96 kPa) than the Brix 3000™ group (339.79 ± 143.78 kPa, p = 0.008) and the Papacárie Duo® group (223.04 ± 127.30 kPa, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: While the application of Papacárie Duo® did not negatively affect composite resin adhesion to dentin of permanent teeth, the application of Brix 3000™ reduced adhesive forces, potentially limiting its clinical use. Further investigations are warranted to elucidate the effects of these materials on dentin substrate, particularly through clinical studies.