Resin adhesion to caries-affected dentine after different removal methods

Vanthana Sattabanasuk, M. F. Burrow, Yasushi Shimada, J. Tagami

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

27 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Caries-affected dentine is the common bonding substrate when treating a patient. At present, there are many methods used for caries removal. The aim of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength of two adhesives (Clearfil Protect Bond and OptiBond Solo Plus Total-Etch) to caries-affected dentine after three different caries removal methods. Methods: Extracted carious human third molars were used and caries-affected dentine surfaces were obtained from one of the three removal methods: (i) round steel bur in a slow-speed handpiece; (ii) Er:YAG laser; or (iii) 600-grit silicon carbide abrasive paper. Each of the adhesives was used to bond resin composite to the caries-affected dentine according to the manufacturers' instructions. Hourglass-shaped specimens were prepared and stressed in tension at 1mm/min. Data were analysed using two-way analysis of variance and least significant difference test. Results: Clearfil Protect Bond showed significantly lower bond strength than OptiBond Solo Plus Total-Etch after caries removal with round steel bur, but the opposite was found for specimens treated with silicon carbide abrasive paper. For laser-treated dentine, no significant differences between the adhesives were revealed. Conclusions: Besides the differences in adhesives, different caries removal methods seem to influence resin adhesion to caries-affected dentine.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)162-169
Number of pages8
JournalAustralian Dental Journal
Volume51
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 2006
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Dentin
Adhesives
Steel
Third Molar
Composite Resins
Solid-State Lasers
Analysis of Variance
Lasers

Keywords

  • Bond strength
  • Caries-affected dentine
  • Smear layer

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Sattabanasuk, V., Burrow, M. F., Shimada, Y., & Tagami, J. (2006). Resin adhesion to caries-affected dentine after different removal methods. Australian Dental Journal, 51(2), 162-169.

Resin adhesion to caries-affected dentine after different removal methods. / Sattabanasuk, Vanthana; Burrow, M. F.; Shimada, Yasushi; Tagami, J.

In: Australian Dental Journal, Vol. 51, No. 2, 2006, p. 162-169.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Sattabanasuk, V, Burrow, MF, Shimada, Y & Tagami, J 2006, 'Resin adhesion to caries-affected dentine after different removal methods', Australian Dental Journal, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 162-169.
Sattabanasuk, Vanthana ; Burrow, M. F. ; Shimada, Yasushi ; Tagami, J. / Resin adhesion to caries-affected dentine after different removal methods. In: Australian Dental Journal. 2006 ; Vol. 51, No. 2. pp. 162-169.
@article{6405e100625d403f96b799136bc32afb,
title = "Resin adhesion to caries-affected dentine after different removal methods",
abstract = "Background: Caries-affected dentine is the common bonding substrate when treating a patient. At present, there are many methods used for caries removal. The aim of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength of two adhesives (Clearfil Protect Bond and OptiBond Solo Plus Total-Etch) to caries-affected dentine after three different caries removal methods. Methods: Extracted carious human third molars were used and caries-affected dentine surfaces were obtained from one of the three removal methods: (i) round steel bur in a slow-speed handpiece; (ii) Er:YAG laser; or (iii) 600-grit silicon carbide abrasive paper. Each of the adhesives was used to bond resin composite to the caries-affected dentine according to the manufacturers' instructions. Hourglass-shaped specimens were prepared and stressed in tension at 1mm/min. Data were analysed using two-way analysis of variance and least significant difference test. Results: Clearfil Protect Bond showed significantly lower bond strength than OptiBond Solo Plus Total-Etch after caries removal with round steel bur, but the opposite was found for specimens treated with silicon carbide abrasive paper. For laser-treated dentine, no significant differences between the adhesives were revealed. Conclusions: Besides the differences in adhesives, different caries removal methods seem to influence resin adhesion to caries-affected dentine.",
keywords = "Bond strength, Caries-affected dentine, Smear layer",
author = "Vanthana Sattabanasuk and Burrow, {M. F.} and Yasushi Shimada and J. Tagami",
year = "2006",
language = "English",
volume = "51",
pages = "162--169",
journal = "Australian Dental Journal",
issn = "0045-0421",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Resin adhesion to caries-affected dentine after different removal methods

AU - Sattabanasuk, Vanthana

AU - Burrow, M. F.

AU - Shimada, Yasushi

AU - Tagami, J.

PY - 2006

Y1 - 2006

N2 - Background: Caries-affected dentine is the common bonding substrate when treating a patient. At present, there are many methods used for caries removal. The aim of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength of two adhesives (Clearfil Protect Bond and OptiBond Solo Plus Total-Etch) to caries-affected dentine after three different caries removal methods. Methods: Extracted carious human third molars were used and caries-affected dentine surfaces were obtained from one of the three removal methods: (i) round steel bur in a slow-speed handpiece; (ii) Er:YAG laser; or (iii) 600-grit silicon carbide abrasive paper. Each of the adhesives was used to bond resin composite to the caries-affected dentine according to the manufacturers' instructions. Hourglass-shaped specimens were prepared and stressed in tension at 1mm/min. Data were analysed using two-way analysis of variance and least significant difference test. Results: Clearfil Protect Bond showed significantly lower bond strength than OptiBond Solo Plus Total-Etch after caries removal with round steel bur, but the opposite was found for specimens treated with silicon carbide abrasive paper. For laser-treated dentine, no significant differences between the adhesives were revealed. Conclusions: Besides the differences in adhesives, different caries removal methods seem to influence resin adhesion to caries-affected dentine.

AB - Background: Caries-affected dentine is the common bonding substrate when treating a patient. At present, there are many methods used for caries removal. The aim of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength of two adhesives (Clearfil Protect Bond and OptiBond Solo Plus Total-Etch) to caries-affected dentine after three different caries removal methods. Methods: Extracted carious human third molars were used and caries-affected dentine surfaces were obtained from one of the three removal methods: (i) round steel bur in a slow-speed handpiece; (ii) Er:YAG laser; or (iii) 600-grit silicon carbide abrasive paper. Each of the adhesives was used to bond resin composite to the caries-affected dentine according to the manufacturers' instructions. Hourglass-shaped specimens were prepared and stressed in tension at 1mm/min. Data were analysed using two-way analysis of variance and least significant difference test. Results: Clearfil Protect Bond showed significantly lower bond strength than OptiBond Solo Plus Total-Etch after caries removal with round steel bur, but the opposite was found for specimens treated with silicon carbide abrasive paper. For laser-treated dentine, no significant differences between the adhesives were revealed. Conclusions: Besides the differences in adhesives, different caries removal methods seem to influence resin adhesion to caries-affected dentine.

KW - Bond strength

KW - Caries-affected dentine

KW - Smear layer

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33745911925&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33745911925&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 16848265

AN - SCOPUS:33745911925

VL - 51

SP - 162

EP - 169

JO - Australian Dental Journal

JF - Australian Dental Journal

SN - 0045-0421

IS - 2

ER -