• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.6 no.2
• /
• pp.88-95
• /
• 2014

PURPOSE. The purpose of this study is to evaluate if pre-treatment with desensitizers have a negative effect on microtensile bond strength before cementing a restoration using recently introduced self-adhesive resin cement to dentin. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Thirty-five human molars' occlusal surfaces were ground to expose dentin; and were randomly grouped as (n=5); 1) Gluma-(Glutaraldehyde/HEMA) 2) Aqua-Prep F-(Fluoride), 3) Bisblock-(Oxalate), 4) Cervitec Plus-(Clorhexidine), 5) Smart protect-(Triclosan), 6) Nd:YAG laser, 7) No treatment (control). After applying the selected agent, RelyX U200 self-adhesive resin cement was used to bond composite resin blocks to dentin. All groups were subjected to thermocycling for 1000 cycles between $5-55^{\circ}C$. Each bonded specimen was sectioned to microbars ($6mm{\times}1mm{\times}1mm$) (n=20). Specimens were submitted to microtensile bond strength test at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Levene's test, Kruskal-Wallis One-way Analysis of Variance, and Conover's nonparametric statistical analysis were used (P<.05). RESULTS. Gluma, Smart Protect and Nd:YAG laser treatments showed comparable microtensile bond strengths compared with the control group (P>.05). The microtensile bond strengths of Aqua-Prep F, and Cervitec Plus were similar to each other but significantly lower than the control group (P<.05). Bisblock showed the lowest microtensile bond strength among all groups (P<.001). Most groups showed adhesive failure. CONCLUSION. Within the limitation of this study, it is not recommended to use Aqua-prep F, Cervitec Plus and Bisblock on dentin when used with a self-adhesive resin cement due to the decrease they cause in bond strength. Beside, pre-treatment of dentin with Gluma, Smart protect, and Nd:YAG laser do not have a negative effect.

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.40 no.4
• /
• pp.260-266
• /
• 2010

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine whether different types of adhesive systems and enamel-protective agents will affect the tensile bond strength of lingual brackets. Methods: A total of 75 extracted mandibular incisors were randomly divided into 5 groups and lingual brackets were bonded. Group 1 specimens received Transbond XT (3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA), Group 2 required the application of a fluoride-releasing resin (Ortho-coat, Pulpdent, Watertown, MA, USA) with Transbond XT, Group 3 specimens received a chlorhexidine varnish (Cervitec Plus, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Lichtenstein) with Transbond XT. In Group 4, a light-cured orthodontic adhesive (Aegis Ortho, Bosworth, Skokie, USA) was applied and in Group 5, an antimicrobial self-etching primer (Clearfil Protect Bond, Kuraray, Osaka, Japan) was used. Results: There were no significant differences in bond strength whether fluoride-releasing resin or chlorhexidine varnish were used or not. Group 5 had significantly higher bond strength and adhesive remnant index (ARI) values than other groups (p < 0.001). The application of enamel-protective products did not have an adverse affect on the bond strength of lingual brackets. Conclusions: These products might provide benefits both for the patient and the clinician, by supporting the oral hygiene during lingual orthodontic treatment. The higher ARI score may be beneficial for Clearfil Protect Bond but its excessive bond strength should be considered in clinical practice, especially where the enamel is thin.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.7 no.4
• /
• pp.323-328
• /
• 2015

PURPOSE. This in-vitro study was designed to evaluate retention forces, microleakage and plastic deformation of a prefabricated 2-implant bar attachment system (SFI-Bar, Cendres+$M{\acute{e}}taux$, Switzerland). MATERIALS AND METHODS. Two SFI implant-adapters were torqued with 35 Ncm into two implant analogues. Before the tube bars were finally sealed, the inner cavity of the tube bar was filled with liquid red dye to evaluate microleakage. As tube bar sealing agents three different materials were used (AGC Cem (AGC, resin based), Cervitec Plus (CP; varnish) and Gapseal (GS; silicone based). Four groups with eight specimens each were tested (GS, GS+AGC, AGC, CP). For cyclic loading, the attachment system was assembled parallel to the female counterparts in a chewing simulator. The mean retention forces of the initial and final ten cycles were statistically evaluated (ANOVA, ${\alpha}{\leq}.05$). RESULTS. All groups showed a significant loss of retention forces. Their means differed between 30-39 N initially and 22-28 N after 50,000 loading cycles. No significant statistical differences could be found between the groups at the beginning (P=.224), at the end (P=.257) or between the loss of retention forces (P=.288). Microleakage occurred initially only in some groups but after 10,000 loading cycles all groups exhibited microleakage. CONCLUSION. Long-term retention forces of the SFI-Bar remained above 20 N which can be considered clinically sufficient. The sealing agents in this study are not suitable to prevent microleakage.

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.49 no.4
• /
• pp.246-253
• /
• 2019

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of three different caries-preventing agents on artificial caries in a Streptococcus mutans-based caries model. Methods: Sixty-five caries-free human molar enamel blocks were treated with a demineralization solution and a remineralization solution. The specimens were assigned to the following groups according to the caries-protective product applied: group A, chlorhexidine varnish; group B, fluoride-releasing chemically cured sealant; group C, fluoride-releasing lightcured sealant; group D, positive control (specimens that were subjected to de- and remineralization cycles without treatment with any caries-protective agents); and group E, negative control (specimens that were not subjected to de- and remineralization cycles). Samples in groups A-D were stored in demineralization solution with S. mutans and thereafter in artificial saliva. This procedure was performed for 30 days. Average fluorescence loss (${\Delta}F$) and surface size of the lesions were measured using quantitative light-induced fluorescence at baseline and on the 7th, 14th, and 30th days. Results: After 30 days, group A demonstrated a significant increase in ΔF and the surface size of the lesions, no significant difference in comparison with the positive control group, and a significant difference in comparison with the negative control group. Group B showed no significant changes in both parameters at any of the measurement points. While group C showed increased ${\Delta}F$ after 14 days, no significant fluorescence change was observed after 30 days. Conclusions: Both fluoride-releasing sealants (chemically or light-cured) show anti-cariogenic effects, but the use of chlorhexidine varnish for the purpose of caries protection needs to be reconsidered.