Adhesive strength of bioactive resin for endodontic tooth build up to dentin treated with conventional and contemporary treatments

Basil Almutairi; Mazen F Alkahtany; Khalid H Almadi; Mudassir Hussain; Tariq Abduljabbar

doi:10.1016/j.pdpdt.2020.102159

Adhesive strength of bioactive resin for endodontic tooth build up to dentin treated with conventional and contemporary treatments

Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther. 2021 Mar:33:102159. doi: 10.1016/j.pdpdt.2020.102159. Epub 2020 Dec 26.

Authors

Basil Almutairi¹, Mazen F Alkahtany², Khalid H Almadi³, Mudassir Hussain⁴, Tariq Abduljabbar⁵

Affiliations

¹ Department of Restorative Dentistry, Division of Operative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Electronic address: mutairibas@gmail.com.
² Department of Restorative Dental Science, Division of Endodontics, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Electronic address: alkahtanymazen@gmail.com.
³ Department of Restorative Dental Science, Division of Endodontics, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Electronic address: Almadikhalid40@gmail.com.
⁴ Department of Community and Preventive Dentistry, Karachi Medical and Dental College, Karachi, Pakistan. Electronic address: resrecprof@gmail.com.
⁵ Prosthetic Dental Science Department, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, P. O. Box 60169, Riyadh, 11545, Saudi Arabia. Electronic address: academicksa1@gmail.com.

PMID: 33373743
DOI: 10.1016/j.pdpdt.2020.102159

Abstract

Aim: The aim of present ex-vivo study was to assess and evaluate the influence of alternative dentinal conditioning methods- Er,Cr:YSGG (ECL) and Photodynamic therapy (PDT) in comparison to traditional etching regimes- Self Etch Resin (SER) and total etch and rinse (TER) on the bond values of Bioactive restorative material (BA) and Multicore (MC) bulk filled resin composite restorations.

Material and methods: Eighty caries free mandibular molars were disinfected and embedded in acrylic resin up to Cemento enamel junction (CEJ). Buccal surfaces of all samples were grounded to depth of 2 mm. Specimens were divided into eight groups (n = 20) based on surface treatment received. Samples in group 1 and 2 conditioned with ECYL, group 3 and 4 pre-treated with methylene blue photosensitizer (MBP), group 5 and 6 surfaces conditioned with TER and samples in group 7 and 8 conditioned with SER. Dentin bonding agent was applied and samples of group 1, 3, 5 and 7 were bonded with BA and 2,4,6,8 bonded to MC. Samples were placed in universal testing machine for SBS testing. Data was assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey multiple comparisons test.

Results: Specimens in group 6 treated with TER and bonded with MC demonstrated maximum SBS (19.61 ± 0.587 MPa). Whereas, group 3 dentin conditioned to MBP and bonded to BA displayed lowest bond values (12.01 ± 0.892 MPa). Samples in group 3 and group 4 dentin treated with MBP bonded to MC (13.68 ± 0.221 MPa) and BA (12.01 ± 0.892 MPa) displayed comparable bond integrity (p > 0.05) CONCLUSION: Dentin pre-treated with TER still remains the gold standard. ECYL as an alternative approach to condition dentin has shown potential and can be recommended in clinical settings. MC as bulk fill composite is recommended over BA irrespective of dentine conditioning technique. MBP as dentin conditioner needs further investigation.

Keywords: Bioactive material; Bulk fill materials; Er, Cr:YSGG; Photodynamic therapy; Photosensitizers; Shear bond strength.

MeSH terms

Adhesives
Dentin
Lasers, Solid-State*
Materials Testing
Photochemotherapy* / methods
Photosensitizing Agents

Substances

Adhesives
Photosensitizing Agents