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


Winter 2001
Volume 3 , Issue 4

Pages: 343-352
Share Abstract:

Six-month Clinical Evaluation of Two Dentin Adhesives Applied on Dry vs Moist Dentin.

Perdigão, Jorge; Carmo, André R. P/; Geraldeli, Saulo; Dutra, Hélio R.; Masuda, Milton S.

Purpose: Acid-etched dentin has been described to easily collapse when it is dried with air after being rinsed with water under laboratorial ideal conditions. Manufacturers of modern dentin adhesives recommend leaving dentin moist, regardless of the solvent used in their proprietary dentin adhesives. Nevertheless, many clinicians still dry the cavity preparation after rinsing off the etching gel to check for the enamel frosted aspect. The null hypothesis to be tested in this clinical study was that drying dentin with air upon rinsing off the acid would not result in lower short-term retention rates than when the cavity was left visibly moist. Materials and Methods: Upon Internal Review Board approval, thirty-five patients were enrolled in this study. A total of 128 restorations divided into four groups were inserted and evaluated at baseline: (A) Prime & Bond NT, an acetone-based adhesive, applied on moist dentin; (B) Prime & Bond NT applied on dentin dried with air for 3 to 4 s; (C) Single Bond, an ethanol- and water-based adhesive, applied on moist dentin; (D) Single Bond applied on dentin dried with air for 3 to 4 s. A microfilled composite resin was used for all restorations. Results: At 6 months after initial placement, 119 restorations (a 93% recall rate) were re-evaluated. Retention rates at 6 months were 97% (one failure) for Single Bond/moist dentin and 100% for the remaining three groups; however, they were not significantly different (retention rate vs dentin adhesive; retention rate vs moisture). Conclusion: Dentin substrate m noncarious lesions may be less sensitive to variations in dentin moisture than the ideal dentin substrate used under laboratory conditions.

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