Home Subscription Services

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


The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry

Edited by Prof. Dr. Roland Frankenberger, Prof. Bart Van Meerbeek

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


Summer 2001
Volume 3 , Issue 2

Pages: 153-167
Share Abstract:

Effect of Different Conditioning Protocols on Adhesion of a GIC to Dentin

Tay, Franklin R.; Smales, R. J.; Ngo, H.; Wei, S. H. Y.; Pashley, David H.

Purpose: This Study examined the ultrastructure and microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of a restorative glass-ionomer cement (GIC; Dentsply) to sound dentin that was conditioned with various techniques. Materials and Methods: Dentin surfaces from extracted human third molars were abraded with 180-grit SIC paper. Five groups of three teeth each were prepared: C - no acid pretreatment (control); P - 10% polyacrylic acid (PAA) for 10 s, no rinsing; R - 10% PAA for 20 s, rinsed; K - 25% PAA for 25 s, rinsed; and H - 32% phosphoric acid for 15 s, rinsed. TEM was performed on a bonded specimen from each group, using unstained, undemineralized sections. GIC buildups were made on the remaining teeth, and after storage at 100% humidity for 24 h, the teeth were sectioned for iJTBS and SEM evaluation. Results: TEM revealed the presence of a structure known as the intermediate layer in all groups. This layer contains metallic salts contributed by both the GIC and dentin. In group C, this layer was restricted to the smear layer. In groups P and R, intermediate layers could be found above partially demineralized zones within the intertubular dentin. In groups conditioned with more aggressive protocols (K and H), the intermediate layers shifted downward to reside within the superficial portions of completely demineralized collagen. Group C had statistically lower μTBS (p < 0.05), while the other groups were not significantly different from each other. SEM revealed adhesive failures along the dentin surface in group C and mixed failures in the other groups. Conclusion: The lower μTBS observed in the control group reflects the weakness of the smear layer attachment to dentin. The higher μTBS in the other groups probably represent the cohesive strength of GIC under tension, rather than its true adhesive strength to dentin. Acid pretreatment dissolves the smear layer, creates a zone of partially demineralized dentin, and allows the PAA to interact with dentin via the intermediate layer. Overly aggressive conditioning renders the dentinal tubules patent, and leaves deeper demineralized dentin that does not form part of the intermediate layer.

Full Text PDF File | Order Article


  © 2017 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