Diverse reports have described how various types of adhesive systems cause disastrous pulp necrosis, chronic severe inflammation or failure to stimulate any pulp reactions. This article reports on the effects of five common adhesive systems and how they compare in terms of pulp injury as measured by odontoblast survival or dentin regeneration and reactionary dentin formation. One hundred and thirty Class V pulp, non-exposed cavities were prepared in non-human primate teeth and were restored with five different adhesive systems. After a period of time between 3 and 172 days, the teeth were extracted, fixed, processed and examined histomorphometrically. Bacterial microleakage was detected with McKays stain and inflammation was categorized according to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) criteria. The number of odontoblasts and the area of reactionary dentin were measured. Pulp reactions of all adhesive systems were generally minimal, although some systems permitted bacterial microleakage in 33% of restorations, and some other systems were associated with pulp inflammation in 22% of restorations. These observations suggest that adhesive systems provide acceptable biocompatibility, however, there is strong potential for improvement.

Analysis of Variance↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Effect of application technique and dentin bonding agent interaction on shear bond strength.

This study evaluated the interaction of five clinical application techniques and the shear bond strength of four DBAs (OptiBond FL, Clearfil SE Bond, PQ1 and Prime & Bond NT). A hybrid resin composite (Herculite XRV restorative resin) was attached to human dentin surfaces using five application techniques: Group A--adhesive spread with a 3M brush for 30 seconds, followed by compressed air 0.5 cm from the surface for one second to remove the excess adhesive. Group B--adhesive spread with a 3M brush for 30 seconds, followed by compressed air 0.5 cm from the surface for three seconds to remove the excess adhesive. Group C--adhesive spread with 3M brush for 30 seconds, excess adhesive removed with a clean brush, two strokes side by side, no compressed air. Group D--adhesive spread with a Micro-applicator brush for 30 seconds followed by compressed air 0.5 cm from the surface for one second to remove the excess adhesive. Group E--adhesive spread with a Micro-applicator brush for 30 seconds, the excess adhesive removed with a clean brush, two strokes side by side and no compressed air. The specimens were stored in distilled water at 37 degrees C for 24 hours, followed by thermocycling between 5 degrees C and 55 degrees C for 1,000 cycles. The shear bond strengths were determined on a universal testing machine operating with a crosshead speed of 5 mm/minute. The fracture sites were examined by 20x stereo microscope to determine the type of failure that occurred during the debonding procedure. Bond strength data were compared with analysis of variance at a significance level of p<0.05. Post hoc comparisons of means were performed with t-tests with p-values adjusted for multiple comparisons. This in vitro study concluded that there was an interaction between the application technique and bonding agent tested. All DBAs utilized the one-second compressed air technique, which yielded the highest bond strengths.

Air↗