Home Subscription Services
 
   

 
The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
JAD Home Page
About the Editor
Editorial Board
Submit
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Reprints / Articles
Permissions
Advertising
Advertising
MEDLINE Search
 
 
 
 
 
FacebookTwitterYouTube
Quintessence Publishing: Journals: JAD

 

The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry

Edited by Jean-François Roulet

ISSN (print) 1461-5185 • ISSN (online) 1757-9988

Publication:

Spring 2005
Volume 7 , Issue 1



Pages: 51-56
Back
Share Abstract:

SEM Analysis of Internal Adaptation of Adhesive Restorations After Contamination with Saliva

Duarte, Sillas / Jr. / Lolato, Antonio Luiz / Freitas, ClŠudia Regina Buainain de / Dinelli, Welingtom

Purpose: This study tested the null hypothesis that different treatments of saliva-contaminated substrate would not affect microgap formation at the dentin walls of bonded restorations. Materials and Methods: Forty freshly extracted human molars received standardized Class V preparations on buccal and lingual surfaces. The specimens were assigned to four experimental groups (n = 20): [G1] no contamination (control group), [G2] saliva contamination (10 s) after etching followed by 5 s air stream; [G3] saliva contamination after etching and rinsed for 10 s; and [G4] re-etching for 10 s after saliva contamination. All specimens were restored with a one-bottle adhesive (Single Bond, 3M ESPE) and microhybrid composite resin (Filtek Z250, 3M ESPE) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The specimens were thermocycled, sectioned through the center of the restoration, and then processed for SEM. Microgaps were measured at the axial wall at 1500X magnification. The data were submitted to Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric statistical analysis at p < 0.05. Results: The data revealed that different groups resulted in a statistically significant difference (p < 0.01) in gap formation. Air drying [G2] and rinsing [G3] the saliva-contaminated dentin resulted in similar microgap values (p > 0.05). However, re-etching the dentin after saliva contamination [G4] increased microgap formation (p < 0.05) when compared with the groups G1 and G2. Although air drying and rinsing produced results comparable to noncontaminated dentin, the presence of microgaps was not completely eliminated. Conclusion: Contaminated saliva did not prevent hybrid layer formation; however, it did reduce the adaptation of the restorative material to bonded surfaces.

Keywords: saliva, contamination, adhesive microgap

Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
  © 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co Inc
 

Home | Subscription Services | Books | Journals | Multimedia | Events | Blog
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | About Us | Contact Us | Advertising | Help | Sitemap | Catalog