Analysis of self-etch adhesives behavior in class I composite restorations with different treatment of enamel margins and light-activation sources/ Análise do comportamento de adesivos autocondicionantes em restaurações de resina composta classe I com diferentes tratamentos das margens de esmalte e fontes de ativação de luz

• Autor(a) principal: Humel, Maria Malerba Colombi
• Data de Publicação: 2020
• Outros Autores: Prieto, Lucia Trazzi, Pierote, Josué Junior Araujo, Araujo, Cintia Tereza Pimenta de, Câmara, João Victor Frazão, Barbosa, Isabel Ferreira, Carvalho, Guereth Alexsanderson Oliveira, Paulillo, Luis Alexandre Maffei Sartini
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Revista Veras
• DOI: 10.34117/bjdv6n10-380
• Texto Completo: https://ojs.brazilianjournals.com.br/ojs/index.php/BRJD/article/view/18435
• topic: Dentin-Bonding Agents; Composite Resins; Dental Enamel.

Objective: To evaluate the microtensile bond strength (MTBS), knoop microhardness (KHN) and gap formation of class I restorations restored with self-etching adhesives and resin composites light-activated by either halogen or LED light curing units. Materials and Methods: Class I cavities were prepared in one hundred and forty-four human third molars. Three self-etching adhesives (Clearfil S3 Bond - S3, Clearfil Protect Bond – ProtectB and One-Up Bond F Plus - OneUp) were applied to the cavities, which had the enamel margins either etched with 35% phosphoric acid or left unecthed. The cavities were incrementally restored with TPH3 restorative composite, which was light-activated using Light Emitted by Diode (Hadii-Cal) or Halogen Lamp (Optilux 501). Epoxy resin replicas were obtained from the restored teeth, which were then submitted to thermal cycling. Afterwards, new replicas were obtained and the gaps at the resin composite/enamel margin interface were analyzed by Scanning Electronic Microscopy. Half sample was randomly tested for microtensile bond strength test (n=6) while the other half had the composite tested for KHN (n=6). Results: The etched enamel contributed to avoid gap formation only when OneUp adhesive system was used. No significant difference in MTBS values was found among groups. For KHN analysis, all restorations light-activated with LED showed higher KHN values than those light-activated with halogen lamps. In addition, the resin composites used to restore cavities with acid etched enamel margins showed higher KHN means than those used in cavities having unteched enamel margins. Conclusion: The resin composite bonded to cavities with S3 showed the lowest KHN values at the intermediate and bottom. ProtectB showed no significant differences for the different surface depths.