Advanced search
Start date
Betweenand
Related content
(Reference retrieved automatically from Web of Science through information on FAPESP grant and its corresponding number as mentioned in the publication by the authors.)

In Vitro Secondary Caries Inhibition by Adhesive Systems in Enamel Around Composite Restorations

Full text
Author(s):
Pinto, C. F. [1] ; Paes-Leme, A. F. [2] ; Ambrosano, G. M. B. [3] ; Giannini, M. [1]
Total Authors: 4
Affiliation:
[1] Univ Estadual Campinas, Dept Restorat Dent, Piracicaba, SP - Brazil
[2] Ctr Struct Mol Biol, Brazilian Synchroton Light Lab, Campinas, SP - Brazil
[3] Univ Estadual Campinas, Dept Social Dent, Piracicaba, SP - Brazil
Total Affiliations: 3
Document type: Journal article
Source: Operative Dentistry; v. 35, n. 3, p. 345-352, MAY-JUN 2010.
Web of Science Citations: 10
Abstract

This study compared the ability of adhesive systems to inhibit in vitro caries lesions in enamel under high cariogenic challenge. Bovine enamel blocks with cavity preparations were restored with AP-X resin composite (Kuraray Med) using four adhesives systems: Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray Med); Clearfil Protect Bond (Kuraray Med); One-Up Bond F (Tokuyama) and Single Bond (3M ESPE). The specimens were submitted to an eight-day pH-cycling regimen. After cariogenic challenge, the enamel was evaluated to detect caries lesions using cross-sectional micro-hardness, polarized light microscopy and scanning electronic microscopy. Data from cross-sectional microhardness and polarized light microscopy evaluations were statistically analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey's test. The mineral % volume showed no statistical difference among adhesives (p>0.05); however, polarized light microscopy analysis showed lower caries lesions with Clearfil Protect Bond (p<0.05). The scanning electron microscopy images showed greater caries lesions and demineralization areas close to restorations for Clearfil SE Bond, One-Up Bond F and Single Bond compared to Clearfil Protect Bond. The pH-cycling regimen promoted subsurface enamel demineralization in all specimens treated. The polarized light microscopy and scanning electronic microscopy analyses showed that Clearfil Protect Bond seems to produce lower enamel demineralization around restorations; however, cross-sectional microhardness did not demonstrate differences among the adhesives. (AU)